HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel submitted that only a small quantity of 35 kgs of poppy husk is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He also pointed out that from the First Information Report reproduced in the petition itself, it is evident that the accused-petitioner was not informed by the apprehending police officer that he has a right of being searched either before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Therefore, it is obvious that the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were not complied with. To support this contention, he has relied on Amarjit Singh and another v. State (Delhi Admns), 1995(2) R.C.R. 578. He also contended that no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged search and seizure; hence, the whole of the recovery becomes doubtful.

(2.) THE learned State counsel relying on State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh and others, (1996) Supreme Court Cases 288 and State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand and another, 1996(2) R.C.R. (Crl.) 759 : 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases 37 contended that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were duly complied with by the Investigating Officer; proper option was given to the petitioner and even if there is any lacuna to the fact that the petitioner was not apprised of the said right under Section 50 of the said Act, it will not entitle him to bail at this stage; the prosecution has yet to adduce its evidence.

(3.) AFTER hearing the rival contentions, in my considered view, bail petition deserves to be rejected.