STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BHAG MAL
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-8
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 14,1997

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
BHAG MAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PIRTHI CHAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SOM NATH THAPA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondents were challened and prosecuted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shimla. The case of the prosecution against the respondents was that on receipt of information from some informal source that the respondents are dealing with in Charas and opium and they proposed to sell Charas on 11-5-1989 to someone at Marog. On receipt of such information, Shri R. M. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theog formed a raiding party consisting of Inspector Chander Shekhar, Constable Kamal Dev, S.I. Satish Kumar, S.I. Madan Lal, Constables Panna Lal, Bell Ram and E.T.O. Babu Ram. This raiding party reached Marog at 5.00 p.m. On reaching Marog, they learnt that respondents are on their way to Marog along with Charas with a purpose to sell it to their contacts. On receipt of this information, this raiding party left for Pujarli. On the way, one Surinder Singh of Village Gorli met them and he was also taken along with the raiding party. When this raiding party reached near Chohag Nallah, the accused were coming towards Marog and were carrying something in jute bags. Their jute bags were checked and it was found that in the jute bags the respondent Bhag Mal was carrying 20 Kgs. of Charas and Ranu Ram, respondent was carrying 71/2 Kgs. of Charas. After taking out samples, remainder Charas as well as samples were sealed on the spot and were taken into possession. After seizure of the contraband, Ruqua was sent to Police Station, Chopal for lodging of F.I.R. which was accordingly registered. Chemical Examiner after examination of the samples sent to him opined that it was Charas. On receipt of such report and on the basis of other material collected during the course of investigation, police found that the respondents are guilty of having committed offence under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, challan was presented by the police before the court below. Learned Sessions Judge had discharged the respondents after having been satisfied that there is non-compliance of the provisions of law viz. Sections 50(1), 52(1) and 57 of the Act.
(2.)It may be appropriate to refer to the provisions of law at this stage concerning raid, search and seizure in case of contrabands. So far Section 50(1) of the Act is concerned, whenever an authorised officer under Section 42 of the Act apprehends a person on suspicion that he is carrying some contraband, then before taking search, he is required to inform the person to be searched that the latter has a right to be taken to a Gazetted Officer or to a Magistrate for being searched. Similarly Section 52(1) of the Act requires that an officer arresting a person under the provisions of Sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Act shall as soon as may inform the person arrested of the grounds of his arrest and under Section 57 of the Act after the arrest or seizure under the Act, the Arresting Officer within forty-eight hours is required to make a full report of all particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate superior officer.
(3.)There can be hardly any dispute as to the effect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law under the Act at the time of conduct of search and seizure. This matter had been subject matter of judicial decisions and the controversy has been set at rest by the Apex Court in its recent decisions.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.