LAWS(P&H)-1992-3-78

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ACHHAR SINGH

Decided On March 25, 1992
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
ACHHAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2.6.1986 a police party headed by Head Constable Balbir Singh was on patrol duty. When they were in the area of village Melak Kangan, Achhar Singh respondent, was seen coming from the side of the river with a gunny bag over his head. This aroused the suspicion of the police party. Accordingly he was apprehended. On his personal search, eight kilograms of poppy husk was recovered 100 grams of poppy husk was taken out as sample by the police. The sample and the remaining poppy husk 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 PD and the completion of the investigation the respondent was sent up for trial. On being charged under Section 15 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 Head Constable Balbir Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, and PW2 Constable Mohinder Singh, witness to the recovery of contraband. The latter corroborated the testimony of Head Constable Balbir Singh. PW2 Head Constable Sajjan Singh testified regarding the deposit with him of the case property with seals intact. The prosecution also relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PD 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 Head Constable Balbir 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 his judgment dated 2.6.1988 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 Head Constable Balbir Singh had been authorised to effect seizure, search and arrest an accused under this provision. Even the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court had conceded that PW1 Head Constable Balbir Singh had not been so authorised. In this background he (PW1 Head Constable Balbir Singh) was neither competent to search nor 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, as it did, that the very foundation of the prosecution case suffers from the lack of competence of the Investigating Officer. We affirm this finding.