ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS SHOKY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel contends that in this case there is a total violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 36-A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, the Act). For the violation of section 36-A, relying on Jeet Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) Recent C.R. 588; Rakesh Kumar v. State and others, 1994(1) C.L.R. 336; Bhupinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) C.L.R. 590; and Babu Ram v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) C.L.R. 628, he contends that as in this case remand beyond 15 days is granted by the Judicial Magistrate, the detention of the petitioner is illegal and on this count also, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(2.) MRS . Madan submits that only on August 9, 1995 FSL report is received. Challan is ready and it will be filed within a week. She admits that all the remands were given by the Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) SO far as Rakesh Kumar's case is concerned, that is a judgment of Delhi High Court. In Delhi special Courts are constituted under section 36 of the Act. Therefore, that judgment is also distinguishable.