- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. The contention of the learned petitioner is that the recovery officer was not authorised to take search and seizure as he was not posted as Station House Officer in the concerned police station. The recovery has been made by Harendra Singh who was examined as PW-11 before the court below and he admits that he was Sub- Inspector at the Police Station, Chanderia and PW-12 Himmat Singh has also stated that he was Station House Officer at the relevant time at Police Station, Chanderia. Hence the seizure is by unauthorised person, therefore, the petitioner should be released on bail.
(2.) RELIANCE has been placed on the judgments reported in Raju Munim v. State of Rajasthan (2006 (3) WLC(Raj.) 392) and Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerela (2000 AIR SCW 4005). Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the Station House Officer, at the relevant time, was not at the police station and Sub-Inspector Harendra Singh was holding the charge of the Police Station. Hence, he was empowered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985( for short 'the Act of 1985') for search and seizure.
(3.) IT is not in dispute that Harendra Singh was Sub-Inspector at the relevant time and rojnamcha of the Police Station also suggests that at the relevant time, the Station House Officer was not at the police station and Harendra Singh was having the charge of the police station. Thus, on the strength of these facts, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that he was the Station House Officer at the relevant time and seizure was within his competence.;