PRITPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED -appellant Pritpal Singh was found to be in conscious physical possession of 2 kg. of opium by Police of Police Station, Division No. 1, Ludhiana, at Domoria Bridge, Ludhiana, on 2nd December, 1985. Vide its impugned judgment dated 29th September, 1986, learned trial court convicted him of the commission of offence under Section 18 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay rupees one lac as fine. in default of payment of fine, the convicted accused-appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years. Feeling aggrieved therefrom convicted accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 724-SB of 1986 in this Court for assailing it.

(2.) I have heard Sh. A.K. Kanwar, Advocate, appearing amicus curiae for the appellant, Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate, for the State and have carefully gone through the relevant record.

(3.) IN dealing with the provisions of section 50 of the Act, it cannot, but be observed that, it would be rendering them nugatory if the safeguard provided thereby, the person apprehended, to be searched in the re presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate, can be brushed aside on merely the bald statement of a police officer, that such offer was declined by him. As is well-known, the legislature has always been somewhat wary of accepting statements made to the police, as would be apparent from the provision of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby statement made by an accused to the police, in the course of investigation, are made inadmissible and if such statement is a confession, it is also hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The provisions of Section 50 of Act have thus to be construed in this context. To give meaning and content to the clear legislative intent underlying the safeguard provided by section 50 of the Act, cogent and reliable evidence and not merely the statement of a Police Officer must be brought on record to establish that the person to be searched was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate, but he chose to decline this offer. In Sudershan Kumar's case (supra), it has no doubt been suggested that such offer should be made before two reliable and independent witnesses, but with respect, it would be appropriate and more in consonance with the interest of justice that as a rule of general practice, the person apprehended should be taken before a gazetted officer or magistrate and searched in his presence. The stringent minimum punishment prescribed by the Act clearly renders such a course imperative. Search otherwise than before a gazetted officer or magistrate should, therefore, be the exception and that too for sound and convincing reasons founded upon reliable material on record. The onus of showing that the person to be searched declined such option being upon the prosecution."