U.T. CHANDIGARH Vs. RAM ANCHAL ALIAS KALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 5.12. 1986 at about 2.00 P.M., Head Constable Harmeet Singh of Police Station Central, Chandigarh was present in Sector 10 market, Chandigarh in connection with patrolling and checking of crime. At that time, Constable Dalip Singh and Constable Telu Ram were with him. One Charan Dass came there. On seeing him the Head Constable Harmeet Singh started talking to him. In the meantime, Ram Anchal @ Kalia accused was noticed coming along the road running through Sector 10-A. At the sight of the police party, he quickened his pace. It aroused suspicion in the mind of Head Constable Harmeet Singh who apprehended the accused. On his personal search, charas weighing 150 grams was recovered wrapped in a glazed paper from the right side pocket of the pants worn by him. Fifty grams was separated as sample out of the recovered charas. Sample charas and the remaining charas were made into two parcels which were sealed. Those sealed parcels were taken into possession through seizure memo. Ruqa was drafted by Head Constable Harmeet Singh. On this basis of the Ruqa case F.I.R. No. 50, dated 5.12.1986 was registered at Police Station Central, Chandigarh under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against Ram Anchal @ Kalia. Sample was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for analysis. Assistant Chemical Examiner analysed the contents of the sample and found the contents to be charas. After investigation, accused was challaned under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh discharged the accused vide order dated 12.5.1987.

(2.) AGGRIEVED from the order of discharge passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 12.5.1987, U.T., Chandigarh has filed this revision in this Court. In my opinion, this revision should fail as there was utter non- compliance with the provisions of the Act. In fact, the case was investigated as if it was a case under the Punjab Excise Act or under the Opium Act. Head Constable Harmeet Singh did not advert to the provisions of the Act at all. Although he knew that he was investigating the case under the Act and he had got the case registered under the Act. In Section 20 of the Act, the Legislature has provided 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac in the minimum. Similar punishment is provided under sections 15, 18 and 21 of the Act. While providing such a stringent punishment, the Legislature thought that there should be some safeguards against false implication. In this case, the provisions of the Act have not been complied with at all. Provisions of Section 55 of the Act have not been complied with. Section 55 of the Act lays down that :-

(3.) PROVISIONS of Section 50 are mandatory. Any violation of the provisions of Section 50 will vitiate the trial. Provisions of Section 50 came into play in this case as soon as Head Constable Harmeet Singh entertained suspicion against the accused. From that moment, when Head Constable Harmeet Singh began entertaining suspicion against the accused, he ought to have asked him that he would effect his search and if he wanted, he could be taken to a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for search. Strange enough, no such option was given to the accused.