SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON July 28, 1999, Bittu was apprehended while driving Truck PUN 8591. He was stopped in the area of village Alloya, where the police party was holding nakabandi under the instructions of D.S.P. The petitioner Sukhvinder Singh, sitting by the side of the driver was also apprehended. On search of the truck, four bags each containing about 35 kgs. of poppy husk were recovered. Before conducting the search, the consent-memo was prepared, whereby A.S.I. had informed Sukhvinder Singh that the truck was to be searched and in case he so desires search can be made in the presence of any gazetted officer or Magistrate, to which he replied that the search may be made by him as he had faith in him. The companion of the petitioner, who was driving the truck ran away from the spot.

(2.) MR . Sunil Chadha, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). No independent witness was joined in the police party. The petitioner was not informed that his search was to be effected by the gazetted officer or the Magistrate and that on this short ground, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. It was also contended that the co-accused, namely Bhinder had already been given concession of bail, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same.

(3.) FIRST of all, dealing with the argument that Bhinder, co-accused, has been allowed bail, therefore, the petitioner should also be allowed bail, I am of the view that his case is different from the case of the present petitioner. Bhinder was not arrested from the spot; that nothing was recovered from his possession; and that he was arrested as his name was disclosed by his co-accused.