STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ANGREJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11.4.1987, a police party headed by PW 1 Head Constable Gurbachan Singh held Nakabandi on the link road leading to village Chhotian Kalan from village Talwandi Bhai. At about 5 AM, respondent Angrej Singh was seen coming on cycle, on the carrier of which he had tied something. On seeing the police party, the respondent threw the cycle and fled away. He could not be apprehended despite being chased by the police party. From the search of the cycle left by the respondent, a gunny bag containing 60 kilo 200 grams of poppy husk was recovered. 200 grams of poppy husk was taken out as sample. The sample and the remaining poppy husk were separately sealed and were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Exhibit PA. 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 arrest of the respondent 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 and claimed trial.

(2.) THE prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW1 Head Constable Gurbachan Singh the Investigating Officer of the case, and PW2 Constable Manohar Lal witness to the recovery of the contraband. The latter corroborated the testimony of Head Constable Gurbachan Singh. PW3 Head Constable Santokh Singh testified about the production of case property with seals intact. PW4 Constable Harvinder Singh carried the sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. 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 the prosecution case against the respondent is not proved as the Investigating Officer (PW1 Head Constable Gurbachan Singh) had no authority to conduct the investigation of the case as no such powers had been conferred on him under Section 42 of the Act and, therefore, vide its judgment dated 26.4.1988 acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him.

(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 of officers to exercise functions under the Act. According to the learned trial Judge the prosecution had failed to prove that PW1 Head Constable Gurbachan Singh had been authorised to conduct the investigation of this case under this provision. Even the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court had conceded that PW1 Head Constable Gurbachan Singh had not been so authorised. In this background, he (PW1 Head Constable Gurbachan 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 leaned trial Court was therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the case against the respondent. We affirm this finding.