CHANDER MOHAN SHARMA Vs. NCB DELHI ZONE UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The petitioner was found in possession of 1 kg. of heroine.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the past two years and that there is violation of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act and the written notice (Annexure B to the petition) which is purported to have been served on the petitioner does not specifically state that the petitioner had a right to be searched in the presence of a magistrate of a gazetted officer. Therefore, the trial is vitiated and the petitioner is entitled to bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme. Court In K.Mohanan Versus State of Kerala, (2000) 10 SCC 222. He has also referred to a bail order passed by a single Bench of this Court on 3.12.2001 in CRLM M 2726 of 2001 (Ikram Versus State).

(3.) Counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the grant of bail. It was argued that commercial quantity of heroine was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that he should not be granted bail without satisfying the court about the requirement of ingredients of Section 37 of the Act. It was also argued that the order of the Single Bench of this Court referred to by the counsel for the petitioner was assailed in an SLP and the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of this order . It was also argued that the notice contemplated under Section 50 of the Act may also be given orally, therefore, the question of compliance or non-compliance of this provision has to be decided after the evidence Is recorded. Reference was made by the counsel for the respondent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pon Adithan Versus Dy. Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madras, 1999 (6) AD (SC) 367.