Honble SINGH, J.–Special Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3816 of 2002.

(2). In both these appeals common questions arise for consideration and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment and order.

(3). Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2000 has tx-en preferred by the State through the Narcotics Control Bureau and is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated December 13, 2000 in Criminal Appeal No.248 of 1997. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order quashed the order of conviction and sentence of the respondent passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.73 of 1996 dated 24.05.1997 and acquitted the respondent of the charge levelled against him under Sec. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was held that the complaint filed by an authorized officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the NCB) was without authority of law inasmuch as the officers of the NCB could not be authorized to effect search, seizure and arrest under the Act, the NCB not being a department of the Government. Consequently all actions taken by them were illegal since the proceedings taken in respect of the offences under the Act were by officers not legally empowered to do so.

(4). In Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No 3816 of 2002 the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by its judgment and order dated 30.11.2001 in Criminal Petition No.669 of 2001 negatived a similar contention urged on behalf of the appellant in that appeal and held that the officers of the NCB could be and were duly empowered under the Act to conduct investigation including the power of search, seizure and arrest. It held that the NCB was not a statutory authority and was indeed a department of the, Government. Consequently its officers could be authorised under the Act to perform these functions. Accordingly the Criminal Petition filed by the appellant herein under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding and the order framing charge was rejected.

(5). In Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2000 the respondent herein was apprehended by a team comprising of officers of the NCB and on search of his vehicle, after complying with necessary formalities under the Act, a polythene bag was recovered which contained brownish substance which was tested on the. spot with the field testing kit and tested positive for heroin. The total quantity recovered was 0.980 Kg. The respondent was accordingly prosecuted in Sessions Case No.73 of 1996 and found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Sec. 21 of the Act. The High Court has not considered the case on merit by reference to the evidence on record since it found, that the entire proceeding was illegal inasmuch as the search, seizure, recovery of offending articles and arrest of the respondent was done by the officers of the NCB who had no power to take such action and to prosecute the respondent.

(6). Section 4 of the Act provides as follows:-

``4. Central Government to take measures for preventing and combating abuse of and illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, etc.–(1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Central Government shall take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of preventing and combating abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the illicit traffic therein.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-sec. (1), the measures which the Central Government may take under the Sub-sec. include measures with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:-

(a) coordination of actions by various officers, State Governments and other a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document