Back
1994 Supreme(Raj) 452
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.R.ARORA
PANCHA RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 225 Of 1994
Decided On : 10/18/1994
B.S.BHATI, M.K.GARG, M.L.Garg
The same officer who conducts the search, seizure, and arrest can also conduct the investigation, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh.
Headnote:
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - SECTION 17 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 42 AND 50 - INVESTIGATION BY SAME OFFICER - LEGALITY - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellants were convicted under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for preparing opium. They challenged the conviction on grounds of non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, improper investigation, and unreliable evidence.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court found that the police officer complied with Section 42 of the Act by promptly recording the information, dispatching a copy to his superior, and proceeding to the scene of the incident. 2. The court held that Section 50 of the Act, which requires informing the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate, is not applicable to the search of a house, as it deals with personal searches. 3. The court clarified that the same officer who conducts the search, seizure, and arrest can also conduct the investigation, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh. 4. The court found that the prosecution witnesses' evidence against the accused-appellants was reliable and inspired confidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the police officer complied with Section 42 of the Act by promptly recording the information, dispatching a copy to his superior, and proceeding to the scene of the incident. 2. Whether Section 50 of the Act, which requires informing the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate, is applicable to the search of a house. 3. Whether the same officer who conducts the search, seizure, and arrest can also conduct the investigation. 4. Whether the prosecution witnesses' evidence against the accused-appellants was reliable and inspired confidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 42 of the Act to require the police officer to promptly record the information, dispatch a copy to his superior, and proceed to the scene of the incident, which the officer in this case had done. 2. The court interpreted Section 50 of the Act to apply only to personal searches and not to the search of a house, as in this case. 3. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh to hold that the same officer who conducts the search, seizure, and arrest can also conduct the investigation. 4. The court evaluated the prosecution witnesses' evidence and found it to be reliable and inspiring confidence, sufficient to prove the case against the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
B. R. ARORA, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-4-94, passed by the Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases, Jodhpur, by which the learned Special Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 17, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, the Act) and sentenced each of them to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment.
( 2 ) ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, alongwith one Smt. Keli, were tried by the learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases, Jodhpur, for contravention of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appellants were tried for the offence under Section 17, of the Act while Smt. Keli was tried for the offences under Sections 17, and 25 of the Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-11-1993, at about 1. 15 p. m. , PW 1 Bhagwat Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Soorsagar, Jodhpur, received some secret information from one Mukhbir that smt. Keli, Pancha Ram and Bhiya Ram are engaged in the illegal business of selling the opium and they are preparing the opium out of the opium milk in the house of Smt. Keli situated in Bhakri Bas, Soorsagar, Jodhpur, recorded the information (EX. P. 1) in the Roznamcha, forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, and along with other police personnel, proceeded towards the house of Smt. Keli situated in Bhakri Bas, Soorsagar, Jodhpur. There they found accused Bhiya Ram and Pancha Ram preparing opium in one of the rooms of the house of Smt. Keli. The S. H. O. seized the opium which was lying in a Paarat (shallow-disc of brass) and recovered other articles which were used by the appellants in preparing the opium. The search of the house of Smt. Keli and the recoveries of the articles were made by PW 1 Bhagwat Singh, S. H. O. , in the presence of two Motbir witnesses, viz. , PW 3 Ram Singh and PW 4 Goverdhan Das. After the arrest of the accused and the recoveries being made, the police party came to Police Station, Soorsagar, Jodhpur, registered an F. I. R. and thereafter the investigation was taken up by PW 9 Rugha Ram - the other Station House Officer posted at Police Station, Soorsagar, Jodhpur. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses. The accused, in their defence, examined two witnesses, viz. , DW 1 Munji and DW 2 Bhika Ram. PW 1 Bhagwat Singh, S. H. O. , after receiving the secret information, entered the same in the Rozanamcha, forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur, proceeded towards the scene of the occurrence, arrested the accused, made the recoveries, lodged the F. I. R. and deposited the articles in sealed condition in the Malkhana of the police station with PW 2 Bhika Ram, who was the Malkhana Incharge at Police Station, Soorsagar. PW 2 Bhika Ram was the Head Constable, who accompanied PW 1 Bhagwat Singh along with other police personnel and was a witness to the recoveries and the arrests of the accused. He is, also, the person, being the Malkhana Incharge, in whose possession the sealed articles were deposited and he sent the same for F. S. L. examination with PW 5 Ganga Ram. He has, also, stated that the seals on the articles remained intact throughout the period since they were deposited in the Malkhana till they were handed-over to PW 5 Ganga Ram for taking them for F. S. L. Examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 5 Ganga Ram is the Constable, who took the sealed articles from the Malkhana for F. S. L. Examination firstly to the Office of the Superintendent of Police and after obtaining the forwarding letter from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, he took the samples for F. S. L. examination to the aforesaid Laboratory and deposited the same there. He has, also, stated that the seals on the samples remained intact. PW 6 Virendra Singh was the Constable posted in th
