STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT had faced trial in FIR No.113 dated 07.02.1998, under Section 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ('Act' for short), Police Station Ambala City. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.06.2000 ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the present appeal by the State.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief was that on 07.02.1998, Inspector Phool Kumar alongwith other police officials were returning to Ambala from Emambari. When they reached near the bus -stand, Inspector Phool Kumar received a secret information that respondent who was in possession of opium was standing near the bus -stand. Thereafter, Inspector Phool Kumar followed the informer and apprehended the respondent. Notice was served on the respondent under Section 50 of the Act. Respondent expressed his desire that the search be conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer. Thereafter, the respondent along with his bag was taken to the residence of Tehsildar, but the said officer was not available. Then the accused was taken to the residence of Assistant Superintendent of Police ('ASP' for short) -Mrs. Kala Ram Chandra. The said officer verified the facts from the respondent and directed Inspector -Phool Kumar to conduct the search of the bag carried by the respondent. On search of the bag carried by the respondent, a plastic container was recovered. When the said container was opened, it was found that it contained ghee. Underneath ghee, a polythene bag was recovered and the said bag contained opium. The opium weighed Three Kilograms. Two samples, weighing 10 grams each were separated. Samples as well as remaining opium were made into sealed parcels with seal bearing impression S.K.S. belonging to Surjeet Kumar. ASP initialled all the three parcels. Parcels were taken in possession. Ruqa was sent to the police for registration of case. Rough site plan of place of recovery was prepared. Respondent was formally arrested. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against respondent.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel has submitted that the trial Court had erred in ordering the acquittal of the respondent only on the ground that provisions of Section 50 of the Act had not been complied with. In fact, in the present case, recovery of the contraband from the accused was effected from the bag, he was carrying. Hence, provisions under Section 50 of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the present case. In support of his arguments, learned State counsel has placed reliance on State of Haryana versus Mai Ram son of Mam Chand, 2008 4 RCR(Cri) 130, wherein it was held as under: -