PRASHANT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The present appellant was one of the accused in the following circumstances :

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would raise several grounds and it is primarily contended that there is serious infirmity in the initiation of the proceedings. It is pointed out that the complaint was lodged only on 21.6.2006 i.e. one day after the appellant and another were found to be in possession of the narcotic substance, in that, the appellant and another were taken into custody not by the complainant, but by an officer of the RPF and it is the said officer who appears to have conducted initial investigation and conducted search of the appellant and another in having discovered that they had consumed narcotic substance and that they were in possession of the said substance alleged in the complaint. It is thereafter realising that the said officer was not vested with the power either to investigate or to initiate proceedings under the NDPS Act, that it was thought it fit to produce the accused before the complainant, who has thereafter initiated formal proceedings on the basis of the information provided and initial steps taken by the said officer of the RPF. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the entire proceedings having been initiated by an officer, who was not empowered or competent to initiate such action in respect of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, the entire proceedings would stand vitiated and would submit that the appeal ought to be allowed on that ground alone.