SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) According to prosecution, 30 grams of charas was recorded from the possession of the accused-petitioner on Ist October, 1998. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there has not been compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in true perspective. He submits that S.I.Gian Singh should have asked the accused that if he wanted, he could be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer whereas he circumscribed this offer to search in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Police Officer. He submits that, no wonder, the accused opted in favour of a Gazetted Officer of the Police due to fear of S.I.Gian Singh that if he opted in favour of a Magistrate, he would incur the displeasure of S.I. Gian Singh. He submits that Section 50 (Ibid) was enacted by the Legislature not as an idle formality. While enacting Section 50, the Legislature intended that as far as possible, the accused should be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer so that the possibility of false implication in such a serious case as entails 10 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. One Lakh in the minimum is considerably obviated. He further submits that this recovery is not attested by any independent witness. If Rajinder Kumar, the so-called independent witness had been there, the seal after use in all probability, would have been handed over to him. He submits that the accused-petitioner has a case for grant of bail.

(3.) Without going much into these submission, I feel that bail should be granted to the petitioner, So. bail to him to the satisfaction of CJM/ Duty Magistrate Amritsar.