TIRLOCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . According to the prosecution, the poppy -husk was recovered on 20.4.1998 lying in the canter being occupied by the petitioner and five others. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery is not witnessed by any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. It is witnessed by Naib Tehsildar, who is not a Gazetted Officer.

(2.) LEARNED AAG, Haryana, on the other hand, submits that Naib Tehsildar is an Executive Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Naib Tehsildar is not a Magistrate of the types as was understood by the Legislature while enacting Section 50 in the NDPS Act, 1985. It goes without saying that in the State of Haryana, Naib Tehsildars have not been Notified for the exercise of powers specified in Sub -Section 2 of Section 41 of the said Act. It is debateable whether Naib Tehsildar should be taken as Magistrate of the type as contemplated in Section 50 of the Act. Without commenting on the merits of the submissions made by the respective learned Counsel, I think bail should be allowed to the petitioner. So bail to him to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Kurkshetra. Bail allowed.