SUBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for issuance of a direction to respondents No. 3 to 7 directing them to produce the petitioner before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate immediately on his apprehension, in case the petitioner is sought to be arrested in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, : AIR 2011 Supreme Court 77.

(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that seven different cases have been registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act. Out of these seven cases, in six cases he has been granted bail and in one case, he has been discharged by the Court. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in these cases and his apprehension is that in future also such like cases will be foisted on him. He contends that as per the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the option is to be given to the person for getting the personal search made and the petitioner had been opting for his search before the Magistrate as per the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, whereas, the respondents have always produced him before the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is a Gazetted Officer. He, thus, contends that a direction may be issued to the respondents that in case, the petitioner is to be arrested under the NDPS Act, he should be produced before the nearest Magistrate. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act which only confers a right upon a person who is to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate as has been provided thereunder. The concerned person whether is to be produced before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate is only at the discretion of the Authorized Officer who is about to search him and the choice has not to be left at the discretion of the person concerned. This is to be done as per the provisions as contained under Section 50 which states as follows: - -

(3.) SO far as the reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja's case (supra) is concerned, it has been held as follows: