BABULAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considered the case diary.

(2.) Shri Bhojwani argued that in the present matter there is no compliance of provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, because in the present raid, the raiding party had taken a gazetted officer - Mr. Negi who happens to be officer of the same department. It is his argument that taking such officer with the raiding party and thereafter saying that the accused were searched before a gazetted officer will not be in any way the compliance of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He placed reliance on the judgement of Orissa High Court in this context in the matter of Bijaya Kumar Subidhi v. State of Orissa, reported in (1995) 2 Crimes 724. He argued that in view of non-compliance of provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the applicants accused would be acquitted and, therefore, accused need to be released on bail in view of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He further pointed that there has been no compliance of Section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

(3.) Shri A. H. Khan, counsel for C. B. N. Neemuch pointed by referring to the case diary that there has been due compliance of provisions of Section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He submitted that the applicants were searched before a gazetted officer, and therefore, there has been compliance of provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act reads :-