STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GURMEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 25.1.1986, a police headed by Assistant Sub Inspector Anokh Singh was on patrol duty. When they were in the area of village Mehal on the bridge of canal minor, the respondent was seen coming on a Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing registration No. PAA-5237 from the side of village Lopoke. He was stopped on suspicion. On his personal search, opium wrapped in a glazed paper kept in a bag was recovered. 50 grams of opium was taken out as sample by the police. The remaining opium on weighment came to 1.450 kilograms. The bulk and the sample were separately sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo Exhibit PA. Ruqqa Exhibit PC was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which formal first information report Exhibit PC/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 18 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 respondent, examined PW1 Assistant Sub Inspector Rawant Singh, a witness to the recovery of the contraband, and PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Anokh Singh, the Investigating Officer. 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 PW 2 Assistant Sub Inspector Anokh Singh had no authority to conduct the investigation of the case as no such powers had been conferred on him. Further, the search of the respondent was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the ACt The trial Court, therefore, vide its judgment dated 5.5.1988 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 PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Anokh Singh had been authorised to conduct the investigation of the case. In this background, he (PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Anokh 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 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 holding that PW2 Assistant Sub Inspector Anokh Singh was not authorised to investigate the case. We affirm this finding.