DAKAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two objections : One that no written notice was given and no writing was taken regarding offer to have been made under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Two, no independent witness was examined. Learned counsel has cited before me the case of Teja Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(1) RCR 753 in which it has been held by the learned Single Judge that where police had apprehended a person on suspicion and recovered poppy husk and there was lurking suspicion, notice in writing should have been given. Failure of the same resulted in the acquittal of the accused of that case.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also cited before me the case of Gaja Nand v. State of Haryana, 1996(1) RCR 720 : 1996(1) RCC 610 in which it has been held by the learned Single Judge that when the recovery effected in a broad day light at about 4.30 p.m. and when it was so effected on a main road, it was difficult to believe that during all this period, there was no public witness available, and it was difficult to pin faith in the testimony of official witnesses, so as to hold that it was established beyond all reasonable doubts that opium was recovered from the petitioner. He has also cited before me the case of Baldev Singh @ Bhela v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR 7. In that case, poppy -husk was recovered in the village at 7.30 a.m. and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent witnesses were joined at the time of recovery and the appellant was released on bail. In the present case also, there is mentioned that offer as per Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was given but, the same was not reduced into writing and no writing has been taken from the petitioner and the FIR was lodged at 10.30 a.m. and checking was done at the special checking in village Saroli when the petitioner was allegedly apprehended and still no independent witness is joined.