DHAMMO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing trial for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short the Act). The prosecution case in brief is that Insp. B.S. Ahelawat of Operation Cell (South West Distt), New Delhi had received secret information on 19.12.1996 at about 7.00 a.m. that the accused-applicant was selling Smack in front of her house. On the basis of this information, a raiding party was arranged. Lady Const. Urmila Devi and one public witness Prem Singh besides other police officials were joined. Option was given under Section 50 of the Act. ACP of the same Cell was called and in the search made in his presence; 51 pudias containing 40 gms. of Smack was recovered from the possession of the accused.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the provisions of Sections 50, 52 and 57 of the Act have not been complied with, he also contends that CFSL form was not prepared and sent to the CFSL as deposed by Moharrar Malkhana (Public Witness 1); that the presence of the ACP is doubtful as he has not signed the seizure memo or any other document; also that the public witness has not supported the prosecution case and his testimony completely demolishes the case. He has also cited some caselaw.

(3.) Whereas learned counsel for the State has contended that these questions could be gone into at final stage and at this stage, prima facie, no case is made out.