DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On receipt of a secret information by Anti Narcotic Cell of the Delhi Police raiding party was organised which reached Delhi-Haryana Border at Badarpur at 7.30 p.m. Four passer by were requested to join the raiding party but they left the place after showing their helplessness without telling their names and addresses. Two police officers, namely. HC Dina Nath and Constable Nakui Bedi belonging to Badarpur Police Station who were patrolling there were also joined in the raiding party. At about 8. 20 p.m. on the signal of the informer, the scooter driven by Dinesh Kumar with Manoj Kumar on the pillion seat was stopped in front of the bus stand Badarplur Border. Both. Dinesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar, were informed of the secret information and were offered to be searched in me presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was served upon them separately. However, both of them refused to get themselves searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate.

(2.) On search ot the accused, Dinesh Kumar, a bag, consisting of charas, carried by him on his snouldcr. was recovered. The recovered charas. on weighment, turned out to be 1.440 kg., out of which 50 gms were taken out for purposes of sample. The sample charas as well the remaining charas were then sealed by the raiding party and the packets consisting of the samples as well as remaining charas. were then sent, after having been sealed, with a RUQQA to me Malkhana with the request to SHO to deposit the sealed packets and the CFSL Form, with the Malkhana after putting his seal on the sealed packets and the CFSL Form. The petitioner is in custody since August, 1995 and the present petition has been made under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail.

(3.) The contention of Mr.Dmesh Mathur, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a 'made-up-affair' and the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case inasmuch as no recovery was made from the petitioner. In any case. according to Mr.Mathur, there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act as the documents, irciuding the notice under Section 50 of the Act, the seizure memo and the CFSL Form were all prepared subsequently which. according to him. was apparent from the fact mat the FIR number was mentioned at the top of the said documents which could not have appeared on the documents as they were all allegedly prepared before the recording ot the FIR and the mere mention of the FIR, according to him was sufficient to show that they were prepared after the registration of the FIR.