VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved by the petitioner against the notice issued to the petitioner under section 58 of the Narcolic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the 'Act').
(2.) AN FIR No. 8 dazed 6-01-2005 was registered under Section 8 of the Act at Police Station, Shahbad, in which commercial quantity of opium weighing 8.700 Kgs was recovered from the conscious possession of accused Ran Singh on 6-01- 2005. The petitioner herein is said to have procured an undated application/complaint allegedly thumb marked by accused Ran Singh, on 8.01.2005 without being forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra, though the accused Ran Singh was in custody. The petitioner marked the said application to DSP Ramphal and got conducted the inquiry through him and on the same day he submitted a detailed inquiry report to the petitioner holding therein that Ran Singh accused was innocent and it was also recommended that he be exonerated or discharged and action against Surjit Singh, Angrej Singh and Mehardeen, be taken. Those persons were arrested on the allegations that they had planted commercial quantity of opium outside the house of Ran Singh.
(3.) THE learned trial Court did not accept this version and Ran Singh stands convicted for an offence under NTDPS Act. However, in view of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the judgment dated 22/24-2-2007 a was issued the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 58 of the Act be not initiated against her on the following allegation : 1. On the asking of accused Ran Singh a twist was given by you in the prosecution version and accused Surjit Singh, Angrej Singh and Mehardeen were arrested on the pretext that they had planted commercial quantity of opium outside the house of Ran Singh, and the said accusation was found to be false. 2. It has been observed in the judgment that a manipulation was made by you with the help of Ram Phal, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector Ram Kumar, Investigating Officer of the case. 3. Accused Surjit Singh remained in custody w.e.f. 8.1.2005 to 29-8-2005 and accused Angrej Singh and Mehardeen remained in custody from 8-1-2005 to 25-5- 2005, Section 58 of the Act reads as under : "58. Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest (1) Any person empowered under Section 42 or Section 43 or Section 44 who - (a) without reasonable ground of suspicion entered or searched any building, conveyance or place; (b) vexatiously and un-necessarily seizes the property of any person on the pretence of seizing or searching for any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or other article liable to be confiscated under this Act, or of seizing any document or other article liable to be seized under Section 42, Section 43 or Section 44; or (c) Vexatiously and un-necessarily detains, searches or arrests any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. (2) Any person wilfully and maliciously giving false information and so causing an arrest or a search being made under this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to two years or with fine or with both." ;