NARANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's counsel submits that from a plain perusal of Public Analyst's report, Annexure P -1, it is evident that some other sample was examined by him about which this report is given. Petitioner was arrested on 25.8.1995 and in the report, marked 6 August, 1995 is mentioned. On the basis of this Exhibit marked, he contends that some other sample was analysed about which this report is given.

(2.) HIS second contention is that from the F.I.R. it is evident that proper option was not given to the accused under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act as the Arresting Officer did not tell him that if he wants his search to be taken in the presence of any Gazetted Police Officer or Magistrate, he will call that officer whereas in the report, it is mentioned that then he can call and his third contention is that from the F.I.R. it is evident that at the time when the petitioner -accused was arrested, he made a confession that he has opium in his possession. According to the learned counsel, at that time the Investigating Officer was duty bound to record petitioner's statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Since that statement is not recorded, the whole of the procedure is illegal.

(3.) HIS last contention is that.the petitioner is in custody since 25th August, 1995, but till today no witness was examined in the sessions trial. Hence, the claims concession of bail.