KUSUMUDDIN @ MANTU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of the first information report bearing Dighal Bank P.S. Case No. 30/09 (Special Case No. 7/09) registered under Sections 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, "the Act") on the basis of a written report of one Pankaj Dangwal, Assistant Commandant, E. Camp. SSB Camp, Dighal Bank in Kishanganj.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a pure legal issue. He submits that under the Act, the very recovery of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance from a suspect puts burden of proof of his innocence upon the said suspect. Under the Act, elaborate procedure for search and seizure of a suspect has been laid down in Section 50 and for the sanctity of fair search and seizure of an accused, provisions as laid down in Section 50 of the Act have to be strictly followed. He submits that the Legislature has laid down this provision with regard to manner of search and seizure under Section 50 of the Act in mandatory terms and the failure to comply with the same would straightway vitiate his conviction and sentence.