High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr. Justice B. Akbar Basha Khadiri
Arumugham
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police, Namagiri Pettai Police Station, Namagiri Pettai, Namakkal District. (Crime No. 75 of 99)
Crl.O.P. No. 3330 of 1999
Decided On : 10-03-1999
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act - Bail - Failure to follow mandatory provisions of Section 50 - Grant of bail
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was found in possession of one kilogram of Ganja and charged under section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. The petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the Act were not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, which requires the police officer to inform the person searched about their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a judicial Magistrate, was not followed. This non-compliance affected the prosecution case and vitiated the proceeding, leading the court to grant bail to the petitioner.
Issues: Non-compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act
Ratio Decidendi: Failure to follow the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act, especially when no independent witnesses are available, would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the proceeding, leading to the grant of bail.
Final Decision: Bail was granted to the petitioner upon executing a bond and fulfilling certain conditions.
1. The petitioner stands charged for offence under section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 210. 1999, the petitioner was found in possession of one Kilogram of Ganja. He was arrested on 21. 1999.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Section 42 and 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act have not been followed.
4. Perused C.D. file. It appears, Sub-Inspector of police of Namagiri Pettai along with his party was patrolling in Chinnakakkveri Vellakkalpatty Road, he came across the petitioner and the petitioner was found in possession of one kilogram of Ganja. It appears, the Sub-Inspector of Police himself arrested the petitioner and seized the Ganja. It cannot be said that the Sub-Inspector of Police had not followed the mandatory provision of Section 42 (2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, because he has sent the copy the F.I.R. to his Superior Officer. But it is evident that provision of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act have not been followed. It is obligatory on the police officer to inform the person searched whether he desires to be searched before a gazetted officer or a judicial Magistrate. Failure to inform a person to be searched would amount non-compliance Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act which is mandatory and it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the proceeding. Especially, when no independent witness are available, the person who arrests the petitioner is expected to serve a notice upon the accused to intimate him whether or not he would like to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. In the instant case, no such notice had been issued and no intimation was given to the petitioner in this regard. I am inclined to grant bail. Bail is granted.
5. The petitioner shall be enlarged bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the special Court (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act), Salem, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent everyday at 10.30 A.M. for thirty days without fail.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.