SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Raj) 453

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.R.Arora, J.
Amar Chand - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No.201 of 11990.
Decided On : 8-01-1991

Advocates:
For the Appellant:H.S.S. Kharlia, Advocate.
For the Respondent: D.R. Bohra, Public Prosector.

An Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police must be authorized by the Central Government or the State Government to conduct a search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Headnote:

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - SECTION 42 AND 43 - AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED - ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR NOT AUTHORIZED - SEARCH AND SEIZURE ILLEGAL - CONVICTION QUASHED.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possessing and selling poppy heads. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who arrested him and conducted the search and seizure was not authorized by any general or special order of the Central Government to exercise the powers under Section 42 or 43 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not authorized by the Central Government or the State Government to conduct the search and seizure, and therefore, the search and seizure was illegal. The court also found that the appellant's conviction was based solely on the evidence obtained from the illegal search and seizure, and therefore, the conviction could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was authorized to conduct the search and seizure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was not authorized to conduct the search and seizure because he was not authorized by the Central Government or the State Government by general or specific order, as required by Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The court also held that the appellant's conviction could not be sustained because it was based solely on the evidence obtained from the illegal search and seizure.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered the appellant's release.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 29, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh (Camp Sangariya), by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Amar Chand under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. The incident, which led to the prosecution of the present appellant, took- place on February 16,1988 when Assistant Sub-Inspector Karnail Singh alongwith the Station House Officer Sant Ram, Constable Mohendra Lal and Constable Paul Singh went on patrolling duty from the Police Station, Sangariya, at about 3.30 p.m. in a jeep. When they reached near the Railway Station, Dhaba, at about 4.00 p.m. one informant met them there and informed that in Mani Ram's Dhani near Canal bank of Bhagatpura minor, the accused is selling poppy-heads. Upon receiving this information, Karnail Singh, A.S.I., along with the other police personnel, proceeded towards the canal and found Jagroop Singh, Pradeep Kumar and Mahendra Singh selling the poppy-heads. He caught-hold of them, made recoveries and in making the recoveries of the poppy-heads from these persons, about 11/2 hours time was consumed. Thereafter he proceeded towards Bhagatpura Minor and on the Northern bank, the accused was found weighing the poppy-heads in a scale and four persons were sitting in front of him. The accused remained sitting there and was caught by the police party while t he four persons managed to ran away. 11/2 bags of poppy heads was recovered from the accused Mani Ram which was seized by the police and the accused was arrested. The samples of the poppy-heads from the bags were taken and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. On F.S.L. examination, it was found that the samples contained poppy-heads' powder. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the petitioner under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act') and the accused appellant was tried under section 8/15 Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh. The Prosecution, in support of its case, produced seven witnesses, namely, PW 1 Subhash Chandra, PW 2 Sant Ram, PW 3 Chunni Lal, PW 4 Jeewan Ram, PW 5 Sobhag Singh, PW 6 Karnail Singh and PW 7, Karnail Singh A.S.I. The accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and he did not examine/produce any witness in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, found the accused-petitioner guilty under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees one lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved with this judgment, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The judgment passed by the learned lower Court convicting and sentencing the appellant has been attacked by the learned Counsel for the appellant on various grounds, but the present appeal can be disposed of only on one ground. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Shri Karnail Singh, who arrested the appellant made the search and seizure that poppy heads was not authorised by any general or special order of the Central Government to exercise the powers under Section 42 or 43 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. This point was, also, agitated before the learned lower Court, but the learned lower Court came to the conclusion that this is not a case under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, which requires special a





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top