CHOW CHIKTAWA JEINOW Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing and setting aside of the investigation arising out of Miao P.S. Case No. 19/2014 under Section 21/27 Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Miao Police Station.

(2.) The petitioner, herein, is arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid case on the basis of an FIR dated 11.8.2014 lodged before the said police station to the effect that the petitioner was found to be in possession of drugs suspected to be brown sugar within 500 mg. In pursuance of the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested and detained behind the bar and subsequently, released on bail. Now, the challenges of the petitioner is that the investigating officer of the case has no any authority of law to investigate the case under NDPS P.S. as no any notification has been issued by the Central Government or the State Government as required under Section 42 of the Act, authorising the investigating officer (the Inspector) to exercise the power of arrest, search and seizure and investigation. It contends that such investigation carried-out by the said officer is void ab initio and lacks sanction of authority of law which infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner as directed under Article 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as provision of section 50 of the NDPS Act requires the investigating officer to produce the accused before the Magistrate at the time of making seizure of drugs from the person, which has not been complied with in this case. As such, the seizure of drugs from the possession of the petitioner is doubtful and unreliable. It is the submission of the petitioner that under the above facts and circumstances, the chances of conviction of the petitioner does not arise and charge-sheet, if so filed, on the basis of such unlawful investigation will be nothing but would be an abuse of the process of law which would finally end up in the acquittal of the petitioner on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction and procedural lapse. Petitioner has relied on the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, 2000 8 SCC 590 in support of his contention. Situated thus, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the investigation so carried in connection with the aforesaid case as well as charge sheet, if so filed.

(3.) In response to the notice served, Mr. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, has entered his appearance and instead of filing any written reply, has advanced his oral arguments by placing reliance on various case laws. By taking leave of the Court, learned Additional Advocate General. Arunachal Pradesh, has also placed on record, some Notifications issued by the State of Arunachal Pradesh and has urged this Court to consider the above Notifications which can be relied upon for the purpose of this case.