IMPORTANT POINT
Where the police officer has already sent all the necessary papers required to he sent under Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to his immediate superior and that includes. First information Report containing information received it cannot be said that there will be no chance to cross-examine the officer with regard to the factum and contents of the information received.

Headnote:(i) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Sections 20(b)(II) and 51(1) read with Sections 41 to 44 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 50(1)- Constitution of India- Article 22(5)- Arrest of petitioner for possessing charas without permit- Convicted a sentenced- Non-compliance of Section 52(1) alleged as accused was not supplied with the grounds of arrest in detail in writing done for preventive detention- Whether (tenable) (No).
       Held: It may be clarified that there is no question of applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the interpretation of the wont "ground" used in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. That interpretation would have no bearing because here in this case the accused is to face trial and at the time of arrest the accused is to be informed wha1 offence he has committed. The information which is required to be given is similar to the information which is required to be given under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, this is an arrest by informing accused for what offence they are arrested and the Panchnama is done in their presence and they are asked as to whether they got any pass or permit for having Charas. Since the Police Inspector Shri, Desai did not get anything of that sort, he filed the complaint, which clearly indicates that the accused were informed of the grounds for such arrest. No question is asked to Mr. Desai, Investigating Officer, in cross-examination on this point and the appellants were also supplied with all the papers of investigation before the charge is framed by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat against the appellants in the present case. Hence, there is no non-compliance of Section 52(1) of the Act. In any event there is no prejudice to the appellants even if the breach of the section is assumed. In any view of the matter, this point, in no way, affects the conviction and sentence passed against the present accused particularly when the guilt is brought home by cogent and sufficient evidence establishing the charge against them after giving full opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention. (Para 10)
       (ii) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Sections 20(b)(II) and 52(3)- Conviction under Section 20(b)- Challenged on the ground of noncompliance of Section 52(3)(a)- The police officer who arrested the accused was S.H.O. of concerned police station- In this fact situation, held, there was no question of complying with Section 52(3)(a).
       (Para 11)
       (iii) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Sections 20(b) and 52(4) read with Sections 53 and 52(5)Compliance of Section 52(4)- P.I. Mr. Desai, the investigation officer himself, who had seized the charas and arrested the accused, was the officer empowered under Section 53- Held: Section 52(4) was not applicable and that Section 52(b) was complied with.
       (Para 12)
       (iv) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Sections 20(b) and 57- Compliance of Section 57- Police Inspector had already sent all necessary reports required to be sent under Section 57 to his immediately superior- Investigation thus was not bad. (Para 13)
       (v) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Section 20(b)Search and seizure in open place and charas found with accused- Panchnama made outside the premises- State Government notification in respect of search etc. of buildings after sun set are not attracted. (Para 14)
       (vi) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Sections 20(b), 41, 42 and 43- Sections 41, 42 and 43 prescribing procedure for search, seizure & detention Competent Police Officer investigated the offence under Section 20(b) of the Act Search & seizure made in public place - So provisions of Section 41 & 42 not attracted(Para 16)- Procedure under Criminal Procedure Code followed-It is sufficient. (Paras 19 & 20)
       (vii)Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Section 20(b)(ii)Conviction under- Challenged as based on sole evidence of Police Inspector who was the complainant- Held is not correct factually.
       (Paras 23 & 24)

JUDGMENT

B.S. Kapadia, J.- The present appeal is directed against the order of conviction under Section 20(b)(II) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the sentence to each of the two accused is R. I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default to pay fine, further R.I. for six months passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat on Sept. 21, 1988 in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1988.

2. The facts of the case in short are under

3. On February, 23, 1988 when Police Inspector, Shri. V.N. Desai, was in his D.C.B. Office, he received secret information to the effect that on As1am Ibrahim residing at Chowk Bazar, Madariwad, was doing business of Charas and that, on that day, in the evening, a big quantity was to be received. At that time, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Shri Gahlot and Police Sub-Inspectors Shri Vyas, Shri Sevale and Shri Valvi where also present. Accordingly, two Panchas were called and they were also made to understand about the raid, and they went in rickshaw to Chowk Bazar and were separately keeping watch. At about 23.15 hours both the present appellants came from Saiyadpura Four Roads and they were coming towards Madariwad through the main road. At that time, they were accused and, on enquiry, accused No.1 disclosed his name as Aslam Ibrahim. He bad with him a plastic bag of blue colour wherein there was one steel container, in which five packets wrapped in newspaper were found. On examining the packets, it was found that, in four packets, there were four lumps of Charas and in the fifth packet there were four lumps of small and big size. On smelling it, it was found to be Charas. On searching person of Aslam Rs. 100/- were found. Immediately thereafter the other accused-Ibrahim Mustafa was also searched, and from his pant's pocket, 18 plastic packets containing pieces of Charas were found and an amount of Rs. 79.50 was also found. All the said pieces were brought out and on smelling, it was found to be Charas.

4. Thereafter, the house of Aslam was searched and from there, a small tin box containing a small plastic box was found. In the said plastic box there were seven weights, viz. one of 50 grams, three of 20 grams, one of 10 grams and one of 5 grams and a small scale was also found along with a stapler and three boxes of pin.

5. The aforesaid four lumps were weighed and each of them found to be of 240 grams, and the other four lumps were also weighed and the same found to be of 440 grams. Similarly, the quantity of Charas recovered from Ibrahim Mustafa was also weighed and it was found to be of 30 grams. Sample was collected from each lump of Charas recovered from Aslam and it was about 50 grams. Similarly, the quantity of Charas, i.e. 18 pieces recovered from Ibrahim Mustafa was also packed separately. The said samples were also then packed and signature of Pancha along with the wax seal of Police Inspector, D.C.B. was applied and after making the Panchnama, the said muddamal was seized and, thereafter, the chemical Analysis report was also filed. Thereafter, the crime was registered against the accused and, after completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the accused were tried for the said offence. The learned Judge, after carefully scrutinising the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has passed the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence.

6. In this case, after receiving the record, Mr. B.B. Saiyed, learned Advocate for the appellants, argued before us at length by making profuse use of evidence on record and raised various points.

7. The first point that Mr. Saiyed has raised is that the seal of D.C.B. which was affixed on the forwarding letter to the Forensic Science Laboratory is not legible. We have perused the same today. Since it is handled in the Trial Court by number of hands, the seal is in the broken condition. However the question is whether at the time when the samples of muddamal were sent to the Chemical Analyser of the Forensic Sci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document