JAHANGIR ALOM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused who has submitted that an FIR dtd. 20/6/2023 was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Khliehriat Police Station, East Jaintia Hills District by one ABSI W. Lamare wherein, on reliable information received by the police that two drug peddlers are travelling in a Tourist Taxi carrying a consignment of illegal contraband, the same to be delivered to the petitioner herein and one Shahnowar Ali at Guwahati, on a check post being erected the vehicle in question being No. NL 07 T 0815 (Tata Winger) was intercepted at BMS Fuel Station, Nongsning. On a search being conducted from the vehicle, about 200 soap cases containing yellowish-orange powder were found concealed in various hidden compartments in the vehicle, preliminary test of the powder giving a positive result for heroin. The total gross weight of the said powder comes to 2.738 kg.

(2.) Upon registration of a criminal case being Khliehriat P.S Case No. 8(6) 2023 under Sec. 21(c)/29 NDPS Act, the two persons were arrested. In course of investigation, Shri. Jahangir Alom the petitioner herein was also arrested having been named by the coaccused as one of the main persons involved in the said drug peddling operation. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet on 6/9/2023 finding a prima facie case under Sec. 21(c)/29 NDPS Act well established against the petitioner and other co-accused.

(3.) The learned counsel has again submitted that in the process of arrest of the petitioner, the concerned authorities have breached a number of mandatory procedures, one of which is evident on perusal of the arrest memo, wherein at the time when the petitioner herein was arrested, one witness was present, however, the said witness is a police personnel whereas the mandate of law as indicated in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 at para 35(2), wherein the provision of Sec. 41B (b)(i) Cr.P.C, which provides that a memorandum of arrest shall be attested by at least one witness who is a member of the family of the person arrested, has been restated, has also not been complied with.