BAL MUKUND Vs. CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Bal Mukund and Basantilal stand convicted under Section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") and appellant Amritlal stands convicted under Section 8/29 of the Act by Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Ratlam (M.P.) by judgment and order passed on 26.08.2000 in Sessions Trial No. 26/1998.

(2.) LEARNED trial Court framed charges under Section 8/18 of the Act against the appellants Bal Mukund and Basantilal and under Section 8/27 of the act against appellant Amritlal. They pleaded not guilty and they were put to trial. After trial, appellants Bal Mukund and Basantilal were convicted under Section 8/18 of the Act. Appellant Amritlal was convicted under Section 8/27 of the Act. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -; in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further imprisonment for 2 years. Hence, appellants Bal Mukund and Basantilal have filed Criminal Appeal No. 964/2000 and appellant Amritlal has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1108/2000.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were not informed of their right of being searched before a Magistrate or gazetted officer hence, the conviction of the appellants is vitiated on this count alone. His submission is that even if part of the prosecution evidence regarding the offer of option to the appellants is accepted, still it cannot be held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were properly complied with because according to the testimony of M.R. Narvale (PW -7) himself, it is apparent that appellants were simply asked their desire for being searched either before Magistrate or gazetted officer. The submission of the learned counsel is that appellants were not informed in the clear words that they possessed the right or they could demand as of right for being searched before any Magistrate or any competent gazetted officer.