DEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C., the petitioners claim that they have been falsely implicated. The alleged incident took place on 8.3.2000. It is the case of the prosecution that ASI Veer Singh received a secret information on 8.3.2000 that the petitioners had cultivated poppy in their fields. The poppy crop is still standing and the petitioners are irrigating the fields. He was further informed that if a raid is conducted, the petitioners could be apprehended red-handed.

(2.) ONE of the grounds taken by the petitioners is that the offence is punishable under Chapter IV of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), therefore, under Section 42 of the Act, it was incumbent upon ASI Veer Singh to reduce the information into writing. Furthermore, under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, copy of the complaint ought to have been forwarded immediately to a superior officer. In this case, according to the petitioners, the information has not been reduced into writing nor it was sent to the superior officer. Therefore, it is submitted that the non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act would vitiate the entire trial. It is also the case of the petitioners that although they are owners of the field, they were not cultivating the same. According to the petitioners, it is evident from the entries in the revenue record that Karnail Singh is cultivating the fields. The independent witness Mehanga Singh, who is Sarpanch of the Village, has submitted an affidavit before the trial Court to the effect that no recovery was effected in his presence by the police. It is further submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act.

(3.) IN the aforesaid case, this Court examined a similar question of law and observed that the Supreme Court had disapproved the investigation by the same police officer who had arrested the accused and took his personal search and recovered the arms in question. Relying upon the aforesaid observations, this Court granted bail to the petitioner in that case. Similar, is the position here. In these circumstances, the petitioners are atleast entitled to the concession of bail. In view of the above, bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Sangrur.