PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Harbans Singh Alias Lovely
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27097M of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 25, 1998
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 36-A(1)(B) - NDPS ACT - SECTION 36-A(1)(C) AND (D) - BAIL - MAGISTRATE'S POWER TO GRANT REMAND - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - COURT'S JURISDICTION - TRIAL OF OFFENCES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were arrested for possession of 75 bags containing 40 kgs of poppy husk each. They applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was declined. They challenged the order, arguing that they were not in conscious possession of the contraband, that no independent witness was joined by the prosecution, and that the challan was not presented within 90 days before the proper Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate had the power to grant remand till the challan was filed if the Special Court was not constituted, and that the further detention of the accused was not illegal. The Court also held that the Magistrate was required to commit the case to the Court of Session as till then no Special Court was constituted in the State of Punjab.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had the power to grant remand beyond 15 days under Section 36-A(1)(b) of the NDPS Act? 2. Whether the further detention of the accused was illegal due to the Magistrate granting further remand beyond 15 days? 3. Whether the Magistrate was required to commit the case to the Court of Session as till then no Special Court was constituted in the State of Punjab?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate had the power to grant remand till the challan was filed if the Special Court was not constituted, and that the further detention of the accused was not illegal. The Court relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Janta Singhs case (supra), which held that till Special Courts are constituted, the Magistrate has to grant remand. 2. The Court held that the Magistrate was required to commit the case to the Court of Session as till then no Special Court was constituted in the State of Punjab. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 36-A(1)(c) and (d) of the NDPS Act, which provide that till Special Courts are constituted, after the initial remand of 15 days by a Magistrate under Section 36-A(1)(b) of the Act, further remand is to be granted by the Magistrate only because there is no other provision in the NDPS Act providing for further remand to be granted by any other Court except the Magistrate till Special Courts are constituted.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the bail petition.
1. By this order, both the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions 27097-M and 29255-M of 1997 are being decided as the subject-matter involved in both these petitions is identical in nature.
2. Petitioners learned counsel contended that on 10-8-1997, police party stopped truck No. HR-25-0769 by giving a signal; two persons jumping from the truck ran away; they could not be arrested, but they were identified by Raj Kumar as Teeta son of Meet Singh and Sibba sonof Meet. The other persons, who were found in the truck were petitioner-Harbans Singh who was driving the truck and Sarabjit Singh was sitting by his side; four other persons were sitting in the truck, whose names were Jita, Rana, Sokha and petitioner Pala. They were asked whether they would like to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, they declined such an offer and expressed that the police officer apprehending them by taking their search; no independent witness was joined. The prosecution has alleged that 75 bags containing 40 kgs of poppy husk each were seized from the truck and on that basis this case is registered against these accused persons. Petitioners applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was declined.
3. Petitioners learned counsel vehemently argued that from the facts mentioned in the First Information Report, it is evident that both these petitioners were not in conscious possession of the alleged contraband. It is a case of heavy recovery, but despite that no independent witness was joined by the prosecution, which only indicates that they had been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel also submitted that challan was not presented within a p eriod of 90 days before the proper Court; therefore, the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were arrested on 10-8-1997; challan was presented in the Court of Shri Nirmal Singh, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Hoshiarpur on 28-8-1997. That Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the challan; later on the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 11-11-1997 after the period of 90 days. The learned lower Court while dismissing the petitioners bail application failed to consider the law laid down in Baljinder Singh V/s. State of Punjab, (Criminal Misc. No. 259-M of 1997), Nachattar Singh V/s. Punjab State (Cri. Misc. No. 14722 M of 1995) as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee V/s. Union of India, 1994 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 639 : (1994 AIR SCW 5115). He also submitted that the remand was granted by the Judicial Magistrate beyond the period mentioned under Section 36-A(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. He also pointed out that joint offer was given by the police to these accused persons, which is inadmissible in evidence. Lastly, he contended that actual culprits have been let off by the police by declaring them as Proclaimed Offenders and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.
4. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, contended that till the date challan was presented, Special Courts were not constituted by the State of Punjab; therefore, challan could have been presented in the Court of Magistrate only. In view of the Full Bench of this High Court in Janta Singh V/s. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 : (1996 Cri LJ 1185) the Magistrate was competent to commit the case to the Court of Sessions.
5. After hearing the rival contentions, in my considered view, the point raised by the learned counsel requires a deep thrashing.
6. In Janta Singhs case (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has considered the provisions of Section 36-A(1)(a) to (d) of the Act, which are added by Amending Act No. 2 of 1989 with effect from 29-5-1989. Full Bench has considered various judgments of different High Courts and also of Natabar Parida Bisnu Charan Parida Bataknushna Parida Babaji Parida V/s. State of Orissa, 1975 Supp SCR 137 : (1975 Cri LJ 1212)
Union Of India V/s. Thamisharasi
Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board V/s. A. Rajappa
Sub-divisional Inspector Of Post, Vaikam V/s. Theyyam Joseph
Raj Kishore Prasad V/s. State Of Bihar
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija V/s. Collector Thane, Maharashtra
Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Assocn., Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange V/s. Union Of India
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.