1996 Supreme(Bom) 549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.D. Vyas Smt. R.P. Desai, JJ.
Mohammed Phiroz Hanif Ansari and another.... Appellants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and another.... Respondents.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 53 with 538 of 1994, decided on 10-6-1996.
Advocates appeared :
A.P. Mundargi, for appellant in C.A. 53 of 1994.
Miss R.S. Sayed, for the appellant, in C.A. 538 of 1994.
S.R. Borulkar, A.P.P. for the State.
Headnote:Sections 3,59 and 61-See Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 41, 42 and 50.
Sections 41, 42 and 50-Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3, 59 and 61 - Accused-Proof of search of-Evidence must show that accused made aware of his right to be marched before a gazetted officer or Magistrate-It would not be sufficient to mention that officer part of raiding party himself a gazetted officer because senior officer contemplated in Section 50 be other than officer-In-charge of raiding party.
Sections 41, 42 and 50-Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3, 59 and 61 - Provisions of Section 50 mandatory in nature-Empowered or authorised officer duty bound to inform accused about his right 10 be searched in presence of gazetted officer or Magistrate-Compliance of provisions of Section 50 to be proved by cogent evidence but not by presumption.
Sections 41, 42 and 50- Trial-It might be vitiated by non-compliance of Sections 41, 42 and 50-Prosecution duty bound 10 prove compliance by cogent evidence.
2. It is the prosecution case that on 11th March, 1991 at about 10.30 a.m. information was received that four persons were likely to come near Naaz Hotel, L.B.S. Road, Kurla (West) at about 2.30 p.m. for the purposes of making a narcotic transaction. The information contained the name of the four accused along with their physical descriptions. This information was recorded by P.S.I. Nigade who is P.W. No. 1. Thus a raid was arranged and for that purpose two panchas were called in the office of the Narcotic Cell. The rading party offered their personal search to the panchas. They also took personal search of the panchas. A pre-trap panchanama was prepared and the Police Officers collected sealing and weighing materials, drug identification kit, and P.W. 1 along with P.I. Pawar and others left in the Police Vehicle and reached near the entrance of the gate of Mukund Wire and Steel Company situated opposite Naaz Hotel and waited for the accused to come. At about 3 p.m. accused Nos. 2 to 4 were seen standing in front of Naaz Hotel and they were talking with each other. After some time Rashid came on the spot with a polythene bag in his hand and the same was shown to the other accused who checked it and handed it back to Rashid. The Police Party, at that point of time surrounded all the four persons and detained them on the spot. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.I. Pawar disclosed his identity to the accused and told them that he wanted to take their personal search. He also told them that they had a right to have their search taken in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and that the accused declined that offer. It is also the further case of the prosecution that P.I. Pawar also told them that he himself was a Gazetted Officer. Thereafter in the presence of the panchas personal search of all the four accused was taken and contraband was found on the person of Muhamed and Rashid who are the two appellants in their respective appeals before us. All the four persons were arrested. However, before framing of the charge, Jallaluddin was discharged and charges were framed only against Rashid, Sajan and Muhamed. The learned trial Judge found all the three accused guilty as charged and sentenced them as mentioned earlier. The present two separate appeals have been directed by Muhamed and Rashid against the said Judgment and order. At the trial, evidence of Tanaji Keshav Nigade, P.S.I. attached to the Narcotic Cell, A.P.I. Naikwadi, pre and post trap panchanama witnesses and evidence of S.R. Pawar being P.W. 4 and bein