STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The acquittal of the respondent, Pramod Kumar in a case under Section 18/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act (the Act for convenience), necessitated the filing of this appeal by the State of U.P. assailing the judgment and order dated 26-3-1996 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur holding the respondent not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 18/20 of the Act.

(2.) The facts, which had bearing on the decision of the trial Court briefly stated are, that on 1-10-1992 at about 1.00 a.m. in the dead hours of the night Sri Vishram Singh the S.O. of P.S. Kotwali, Hamirpur with the police party comprised of Sub Inspector Surendra Singh, Head Constable, Indra Pal Singh, Constable, Raj Kumar Singh and constable, Kamlesh Kumar Awasthi, was on law and order duty during Ram Lila festival in the city of Hamirpur. It is stated that when the police party on a jeep driven by the Constable, Suresh Singh reached near Laxmi Park, Sri Vishram Singh saw the respondent coming from opposite direction on the road. On seeing the police, the respondent crouched in fear and tried to flee away, however, the police party succeeded to approach him near flour mill of one Guru. On interrogation, he told that he was carrying opium and Charas in the bag for being sold to its consumers. On this S.O. Sri Vishram Singh asked him whether he would like to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. The respondent expressed his faith in S.O. Sri Vishram Singh and said that there was no necessity of the presence of the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate during the search. Then the S.O. took personalsearch of the respondent and recovered 700 grms. Charas and 300 grms Opium wrapped in a polythene sheet from the bag held by the respondent. He sealed the same in that very bag and got a search and recovery memo prepared by S.I. Surendra Singh on spot on his dictation. Thereafter, he brought the respondent with the recovered article to the police station.

(3.) The Head Moharrir, on duty, on the basis of the search memo, prepared the chick F.I.R. and registered a case against the respondent under Section 18/20 of the Act, vide Crime No. 354 of 1992.