KOKIA MAHATO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding being C Case No. 6 of 1996 arising out of G.R. Case No. 227 of 1996 pending in the Court of Ld. Judge, Special Court, (Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act), Suri, in connexion with Bolpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 1996 dated 25.6.96 under Section 20/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 forms the subject matter of challenge in the instant application that has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The aforesaid police case was started on the allegations which may, in substance, be stated as follows. On 25.6.96 around 1-45 hrs., while the O.C., Bolpur P.S. along with his force was on night patrol duty under the direct supervision of S.D.P.O., Bolpur, he received a secret source information that some people were possessing some packets of Ganja in the house of one Swapan Das at Bolpur (Kalipukur), Hattala. At once, the patrol party rushed to the spot under the direct supervision of the S.D.P.O., Bolpur, and got the house identified. On entering into that house which is a mud-built thatched house, the raiding party found three persons including the owner of the house, Swapan Das, sitting in the open room on the western side of the house with three packets wrapped with newspapers and tied with threads. They all tried to flee away at the sight of the police party, but failed. Those three persons were found sitting surrounding those three packets. On search, the packets were found to contain Ganja. On demand, they could not account for possession of the said Ganja. Ganja was seized in presence of witnesses under a seizure list. The three persons from whose possession the Ganja was seized were arrested and along with the seized articles and they were brought to Bolpur P.S. and on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the O.C. the case was started under Section 20/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') against them.

(3.) Mr. Amit Talukdar, the ld. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has raised the following grounds for quashing the impugned proceeding.