IMPORTANT POINT
For offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the Excise official in order to get remand of accused is not required to produce case-diary. Matters will have to be brought to the notice of the court only through a complaint.

JUDGMENT

Palok Basu, J. - These two petitions under section 482, Cr.P.C. arise out of the following facts:

2. On 28.8.1988 some contraband charas were recovered from the possession of Hamid Ullah, Wahid and Halim by one Sri H.P. Singh, an Excise Inspector of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The three were consequently arrested on the said date. On 21.8.1988 all the three accused were produced before the C.J.M./Link Magistrate, Meerut who passed the following order:

"Aaj Dinank 21.8.88 Ko Uprokt Apradh Men Muljim Uprokt Ko Thaney Dwara Giraftar Karkey Remand Key Merey Samksh Pesh Kiya Gaya. I.R. Ki Remand Prarthna Patra Key Auolokan Dwara Giyat Hua Ke Vivechna Abhi Shesh Hai.

The C.D. has not been produced. The Excise Inspector has submitted that G.D. and C.D. are not maintained by the Excise Officers as only State complaint is preferred. The case property is duly sealed condition. The wrapper has a level (D-19A) with the signature of the accused. The Excise Inspector has submitted that the seized property shall be sent for Chemical examination report and if the report in positive than he shall prefer a complaint. Heard, Perused the material on record. The accused remanded to judicial custody till 29.3.88".

3. Against the said remand order dated 21.8.88 Crl. Revision No. 294 of 1988 was preferred by Halim, Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1988 was filed by Hamid Ullah and Crl Revision No. 296 of 1988 was filed by Wahid before the Sessions Judge, Meerut. These revisions were admitted and the Sessions Judge granted bail to all the three accused. By an order dated 3.10.1988 all the three petitions have been dismissed against which Hamid Ullah has filed Cr. Misc Application No. 10031 of 1988 while Wahid and Halim have filed Cr. Misc Application No. 10059 of 1988. When these matters came up before this Court on 7.10.1988 the Government Advocate was directed to obtain instructions or file a counter affidavit and the matter was directed to be taken up for admission on 12.10.1988. Sri Satish Trivedi and Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma have argued the matter on behalf of the applicants a ld Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned Deputy Government Advocate has appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and also the Excise Inspector, U.P. Excise, Sector-1 Meerut.

4. Sri Trivedi has argued that the remand granted by the Magistrate on 21.3.1988 is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the detention of all the three applicants was not legal and consequently the two petitions be allowed and the accused should be set at liberty. The applications are being contested on the ground that there is no illegality in the proceedings and all the actions and orders are in accord with the provisions contained in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) My attention was drawn to section 53 of the Act by Sri Trivedi. It was argued that in view of sub-section (2) of section 53 a notification by the State of Uttar Pradesh investing an officer of the State Excise Department with the powers of officer-in-charge of a Police Station for investigation of offences under the Act should have been made and in the absence of such notification the arrest, seizure, and production of accused by Sri H.P. Singh, Excise Inspector, is illegal. For correct appraisal of the arguments section 53 itself may be quoted below:

"Section 53. Power to invest officers of certain departments with powers of all officer-in-charge of police station-(1) The Central Government, after consultation with the State Government, may, by notification published in the official Gazette, invest any officer of the department of central excise, narcotics customs, revenue intelligence of Border Security Force of any class of such officers with the powers of an officers-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under this Act.

(2) The State Government may, by notification published in the Official Gazette, invest any officer of the departm