KITAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 29.8.1997, A.S.I. Prithvi Singh was present near Tramara bridge Sonali Road Panipat alongwith constable Parmod Kumar and other police personnel. The accused was sighted by them going on the Kacha road. Seeing the policemen stationed there, he tried to go back. A.S.I. Prithvi Singh became suspicious about his movements. He caught hold of him. The accused disclosed his name as Kitab Singh son of Mange Ram Balmiki, R/o Nizdghane Baba Ki Kutiya, Vikas Nagar, Panipat falling in PS Chandani Bagh, Panipat. He told Prithvi Singh that he was carrying a cotton bag. Prithvi Singh told him that he was suspecting the cotton bag as containing contraband and therefore, he would like to search it and if he so wishes, it could be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. The accused, thereupon replied that he would like to be searched by a gazetted officer. He made statement to this effect before the A.S.I. Prithvi Singh. A wireless message was flashed to DSP City Panipat, who reached the spot and directed ASI, Prithvi Singh to carry out the search. On search, the cotton bag was found to be containing Charas weighing about 450 grams in a green-coloured polythene bag.

(2.) IT has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has not been strict compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 inasmuch as A.S.I. Prithvi Singh did not send for a Magistrate or a gazetted officer of some other Department, if he were really so earnest. He should not have sent for D.S.P., who is none else, but one from the police force. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the object of the Legislature while enacting Section 50 of the NDPS Act was to give assurance to the accused that there will not be any false implication, and that assurance was a must when the Legislature provided 10 years, imprisonment and fine up to Rs. One lakh in the minimum, for these offences. It has also been submitted that when the Legislature intends that a particular thing should be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner and in no other whatsoever. Further that the recovery has not been witnessed by any independent witness. It has been witnessed only by A.S.I. Prithvi Singh and the D.S.P. City Panipat. It has been further submitted that things would have been different if the recovery had been witnessed by some independent witnesses. In this case, thus, it is open to debate whether there has been compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the spirit in which the Legislature intended that it should be complied with or whether the compliance was only a ritual and a formality.