MUNNI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . According to the prosecution Opium weighing 4 kilograms and 600 grams was recovered from the possession of the accused on 15.5.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on being apprehended the petitioner opted to be searched by a Magistrate. Thereupon Inspector Dhian Singh sent for Shri Pankaj Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Panipat. In the presence of Shri Pankaj Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Panipat her personal search was effected. On the personal search of the accused, from bag she was carrying in her right hand opium weighing 4 kilograms and 600 grams was recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner had opted in favour of search being made in the presence of a Magistrate, some Magistrate should have been called. He submits that Naib Tehsildar is not a Magistrate of the type as envisaged in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He further submits that he should be a "Magistrate" who is popularly known as Magistrate. He submits that "Naib Tehsildars" are not popularly known as Magistrates. Naib Tehsildars are called "Naib Tehsildars" and Tehsildars are called "Tehsildars". He further submits that Naib Tehsildar is not a Magistrate vested with any powers exercisable under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He may be Magistrate for revenue purposes.

(2.) HE further submits that the petitioner is a woman aged 65 years and has been in jail since 15.5.2001 and the trial is likely to take long. Without going much into whether Naib Tehsildar is or is not a Magistrate of the type as envisaged in Section 50 of the Act, I think bail should be allowed to the petitioner. So bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Petition allowed.