Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 480
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L. Singhal, J.
U.T. Chandigarh - Petitioner
Versus
Ram Anchal alias Kalia - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1008 of 1987.
Decided On : 20 March, 1998
For the Petitioner: None.
For the Respondent: None.
Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 during the investigation renders the search and seizure illegal and vitiates the trial.
Headnote:
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 20, 42, 43, 50, 55, 57 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - PROCEDURE - NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was arrested and charged under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act) for possession of charas. The accused was discharged by the trial court due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act during the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the discharge of the accused, holding that there was utter non-compliance with the provisions of the Act during the investigation. The court noted that the police officer who conducted the search and seizure did not comply with the requirements of Sections 50, 55, and 57 of the Act, which rendered the search and seizure illegal.
Issues: Whether the search and seizure conducted by the police officer was in compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Sections 50, 55, and 57 of the Act are mandatory and any violation of these provisions would vitiate the trial. The court found that the police officer did not comply with these provisions, and therefore, the search and seizure was illegal.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the State and upheld the discharge of the accused.
M.L. Singhal, J. - According to the prosecution, on 5.12. 1986 at about 2.00 P.M., Head Constable Harmeet Singh of Police Station Central, Chandigarh was present in Sector 10 market, Chandigarh in connection with patrolling and checking of crime. At that time, Constable Dalip Singh and Constable Telu Ram were with him. One Charan Dass came there. On seeing him the Head Constable Harmeet Singh started talking to him. In the meantime, Ram Anchal @ Kalia accused was noticed coming along the road running through Sector 10-A. At the sight of the police party, he quickened his pace. It aroused suspicion in the mind of Head Constable Harmeet Singh who apprehended the accused. On his personal search, charas weighing 150 grams was recovered wrapped in a glazed paper from the right side pocket of the pants worn by him. Fifty grams was separated as sample out of the recovered charas. Sample charas and the remaining charas were made into two parcels which were sealed. Those sealed parcels were taken into possession through seizure memo. Ruqa was drafted by Head Constable Harmeet Singh. On this basis of the Ruqa case F.I.R. No. 50, dated 5.12.1986 was registered at Police Station Central, Chandigarh under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against Ram Anchal @ Kalia. Sample was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for analysis. Assistant Chemical Examiner analysed the contents of the sample and found the contents to be charas. After investigation, accused was challaned under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh discharged the accused vide order dated 12.5.1987.
2. Aggrieved from the order of discharge passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 12.5.1987, U.T., Chandigarh has filed this revision in this Court. In my opinion, this revision should fail as there was utter non- compliance with the provisions of the Act. In fact, the case was investigated as if it was a case under the Punjab Excise Act or under the Opium Act. Head Constable Harmeet Singh did not advert to the provisions of the Act at all. Although he knew that he was investigating the case under the Act and he had got the case registered under the Act. In Section 20 of the Act, the Legislature has provided 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac in the minimum. Similar punishment is provided under sections 15, 18 and 21 of the Act. While providing such a stringent punishment, the Legislature thought that there should be some safeguards against false implication. In this case, the provisions of the Act have not been complied with at all. Provisions of Section 55 of the Act have not been complied with. Section 55 of the Act lays down that :-
"An officer-in-charge of a Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that Police Station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the Police Station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with seal of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station."
3. Head Constable Harmeet Singh should have taken the sealed parcels to the officer-in-charge of the police station who should have affixed his own seal on the parcels or the officer-in-charge of the police station should have taken the samples of charas from them and all samples so taken should also have been sealed with the seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station. There is non-compliance with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act which lays down that :-
"Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours n
