KHARAITI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks grant of bail in a case registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

(2.) AS per complaint dated 6.9.1996 filed by the Seizing Officer it reveals that in pursuance of a secret information it came to light that petitioner alongwith Gurmit Singh is involved in illegal drug trafficking and exchange of foreign currency. Consequently, a raid was conducted at the premises known as M/s Kartar Fashion Wearing, Rainak Bazar, Amritsar. Recovery of Rs. 4 lacs Indian currency and foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 17,000/ - and two packets containing 400 grams of brown sugar from the flush to Toilet in the first floor of the business premises was made. Statement of Kharaiti Lal under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded. At the time of search petitioner who is stated to be the Manager was found present at the shop and so the recoveries are effected in his presence.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent on the other hand argued that petitioner alongwith Gurmit Singh is in illegal trade of banned articles like the brown sugar besides violating the provisions of Foreign Exchange and Regulation Act. It is on the basis of secret information that a raid was conducted at the premises which was in exclusive possession of the petitioner and Gurmit Singh. At the time of raid petitioner as well as son of Gurmit Singh were found present and on search a sum of Rs. 4 lacs Indian currency and foreign currency equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 17,000/ - and two packets of 400 grams of brown sugar were recovered from his possession. Petitioner's statement was recorded in terms of Section 108 of the Customs Act wherein he has specifically admitted that two packets were recovered from the flush tank of the latrine which contained brownish powder. This recovery was effected in my presence. Petitioner describes himself to be the Manager appointed by Gurmit Singh whereas in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act he admits that he has 50% share in the business which is being carried out in the premises from which the recovery is stated to have been effected. Thus, in the context of the present case the petitioner had physical control of the premises and so the things recovered would be deemed to be in his possession in law. As per Section 25 of the NDPS Act any person, be it as owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house owned, enclosure, space etc. too is liable to be punished in case such premises is being put to use for commission of an offence. So, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had no knowledge of these articles is wholly mis - placed. Since the recovery has been effected from the premises in his exclusive possession, petitioner is per se guilty of the crime and in view of Section 37 of the Act does not deserve the concession of bail.