SATYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE learned counsel of the ap plicant contended that under Section 53 (A) of Narcotic Drugs, the statement of witnesses recorded by the Recovering Of ficer are admissible in evidence. It is con tended that for the said recovery, two per sons were kept to witness the recovery and the said persons were Kedar and Sanjay Kumar. THE statement of the said wit nesses, namely, Kedar, and Sanjay Kumar recorded by the Recovering Officer has been filed as Annexure CA- 3 with the counter affidavit and it was shown that the said witness stated that before the Recovering Officer, asked the accused-ap plicant Satya Narain to make search of police personnel and public witnesses which was refused by the accused. THEre after, the recovery proceedings were started and Heroin was recovered. It was not stated by the said witness that before the recovery , Satya Narain accused was given option for the recovery to be made before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. If any such option would have been given the same must have been men tioned by the witness. This option is very material and gives a material right to the accused and if this option is not cor roborated by the public witness of recovery, it cannot be held that the said option was given only because it was writ ten in the recovery memo.

(3.) CONSIDERING the above facts and the case law, the bail application is allowed.