STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14.7.1986, a police party headed by Sub-Inspector Buggar Singh was going from village Bhaini Jassa to village Kahneka via Kacha passage in Government jeep bearing registration No. DEO 4634, for detecting illicit liquor and opium. When the said jeep reached near the turning to village Kahneka, Hardev Singh, respondent, was seen coming from the side of village Kahneka with a bag on his right shoulder. On seeing the police jeep, he perplexed and tried to turn back. This aroused the suspicion of the police party, and, therefore, he was apprehended. On his personal search, 500 grams of opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the bag on his right shoulder. Ten grams of opium was taken out as sample by the police. The sample and the remaining opium were separately sealed. The Investigating Officer sent intimation Exhibit PB to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal first information report Exhibit PB/1 was recorded. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PE and the completion of the investigation, the respondent was sent up for trial. On being charged under Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

(2.) THE prosecution, in order to bring home the charge to the respondent, examined PW1 Sub-Inspector Buggar Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, and PW2 Head Constable Nahra Sing, witness to the recovery of the contraband. The latter corroborated the testimony of Sub-Inspector Buggar Singh. The prosecution also relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PE and the affidavits of the formal witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. The trial Court, after consideration of the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that PW1 Sub-Inspector Buggar Singh had no authority to seize, search and arrest under the Act as no such powers had been conferred on him under Section 42 of the Act and, therefore, vide its judgment dated 26.4.1989 acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him. Feeling aggrieved against this judgment, the State of Punjab has filed this appeal.

(3.) UNDER Section 42 of the Act the Central and the State Governments have been vested with the powers to authorise various categories of Officers to exercise functions under the Act. According to the learned trial Judge, the prosecution had failed to prove that PW1 Sub Inspector Buggar Singh had been authorised to effect seizure, search and arrest the accused. Even the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court had conceded that PW Sub-Inspector Buggar Singh had not been so empowered. In this background, he (PW1 Sub Inspector Buggar Singh) was neither competent to search or arrest the respondent as he had no authority vested in him under the Act. In this connection, reference may also be made to the authority reported as Nand Lal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1987(3) Crimes 629, which supports this view. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the investigation made against the respondent was clearly in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. We affirm this finding.