MUNNA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the F.I.R. S. I., G. N. Tewari, Station Officer G. R. P., Charbagh Lucknow received an intimation from an informant that on 11.12.94 one person will be carrying CHARAS in a bag by Kisan Express to Saharanpur. S.I., G. N. Tewari took with him Police Force and tried to obtain witnesses but persons present at the plate form did not agree to become witness and therefore, the police force after taking search of themselves, went towards parcel office where it was found that the applicant was coming with a bag. The informant pointed out that he was the same person and thereafter, the informant went away. S. I., G. N. Tewari arrested the applicant. When he was questioned whether he was In possession of Charas, after great persuasion and with an apology the applicant admitted that he was carrying Charas which he purchases from Muzaffarpur and sells it at Saharanpur. On being satisfied that the applicant was possessing Charas, S. I., Tewari sent another S.I., Sri Misra to the Police Station to call for the Circle Officer by Phone. On receiving telephonic information Sri A. N. Singh Deputy S. P. reached there and the Deputy Superintendent of Police took search of the applicant which revealed recovery of 1.5 kg. Charas regarding which other formalities like preparation of recovery memo etc. were completed and case was registered against the applicant under Crime Case No. 1066 of 1994 under Section 8/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') P. S., G. R. P., Charbagh, Lucknow.

(2.) SRI I. Murtaza learned counsel for the applicant, argued that under Section 50 of the Act, it is the duty of arresting officer to inform the accused that he has a right to demand his search being made either in presence of Gazetted Officer or in presence of a Magistrate. For this purpose, he placed his reliance on a decision of Supreme Court given in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 (3) SCC 299. He argued that the arresting officer, namely, S. 1., SRI G. N. Tewari did not inform the applicant that he had an option to demand search in presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and therefore, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and as such, the applicant was entitled to bail.

(3.) LET a copy of this order be sent to the Home Secretary, Government of U. P. and Director General of Police, U. P. for issuing directions to the Investigating Officers as observed by the Supreme Court.