HAMID ULLAH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under S.482, Cr. P.C. arise out of the following facts : On 20-8-1988 some contraband charas was recovered from the possession of Hamid Ullah, Vahid and Halim by one Sri H.P. Singh, an Excise Inspector of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The three were consequently arrested on the said date. On 21-8-1988 all three accused were produced before the C.J.M. Link Magistrate Meerut who passed the following order :-

(2.) Against the said remand order dated 21-8-88 Criminal Revision No. 294 of 1988 was preferred by Halim. Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1988 was filed by Hamid Ullah and Crl. Revision No. 296 of 1988 was filed by Wahid before the Sessions Judge Meerut. These revisions were admitted and the Sessions Judge granted bail to all the three accused. By an order dated 3-10-1988 all the three petitions have been dismissed against which Hamid Ullah has filed Cr. Misc. Application No. 10031 of 1988 while Wahid and Helium have filed Cr. Misc. Application No. 10059 of 1988. When these matters came up before this Court on 7-10-1988 the Government Advocate was directed to obtain instructions to file a counter-affidavit and the matter was directed to be taken up for admission on 12-10-1988. Sri Satish Trivedi and Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma have argued the matter on behalf of the applicants and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav, learned Deputy Government Advocate has appeared on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and also the Excise Inspector, U.P. Excise, Sector 1 Meerut.

(3.) Sri Trivedi has argued that the remand granted by the Magistrate on 21-3-88 is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the detention of all the three applicants was not legal and consequently the two petitions be allowed and the accused should be set at liberty. The applications are being contested on the ground that there is no illegality in the proceedings and all the actions and orders are in accord with the provisions contained in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.). My attention was drawn to S.53 of the Act by Sri Trivedi. It was argued that in view of Sub-Sec. (2) of S.53 a notification by the State of Uttar. Pradesh investing an officer of the State Excise Department with the powers of officer-in-charge of a Police Station for investigation of offences under the Act should have been made and in the absence of such notification the arrest, seizure, and production of accused by Sri H.P. Singh, Excise Inspector, is illegal. For correct appraisal of the arguments S.53 itself may be quoted below :