SUKUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Sukumar Mandal has been convicted under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence is well founded. Vivekanand Sinha (PW 4) is the I.P.S. Officer. He was posted on probation as Station Officer of Abhanpur Police Station. He has deposed that on 28.5.1999 he received information that a person is coming with ganja by bus and he would alight at village Kendri. He recorded this information in the panchnama Ex. P -12 and in the Rojnamcha Sanha No. 1322. This was in compliance with Section 42 of the Act. In this case the recovery of ganja was made at a public place and therefore, it was not essential to comply with this provision. Section 43 of the Act is attracted in such a case. Vivekanand Sinha (PW 4) has further deposed that after reaching village Kendri he waited for the bus coming from Jagdalpur. The accused alighted from this bus with a suit -case and a bag. He asked the accused his name and he told him that his name is Sukumar Mandal. He served the notice Ex. P -1 on him apprising him of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the documents have been written by a head -constable. But the investigating officer in this case has clarified that the documents, which were written by the head -constable, were written under his dictation. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the document is scribed by an inferior officer at the dictation of the empowered officer. The report relating to the search and seizure was sent to the D.S.P. as per Ex. P -17. This was in compliance with Section 57 of the Act. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that after search and seizure the further investigation should have been conducted by another police officer. On this point the legal position has been dealt with in the judgment passed today in Criminal Appeal No. 2407 of 1999 (Dharmu v. State of M.P.) which was argued in the presence of the counsel for the appellant in the present case. That argument has been rejected.