USMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur for the offence under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as he was found in possession of 102 grams of smack on 5. 10. 1993. THE learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur, on considering the prosecution evidence and the material on record, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that smack was found from the pocket of the trouser of the accused appellant. THErefore, the learned Special Judge found the accused appellant guilty of having committed offence under Section 8/22 of the Act and accordingly, convicted the accused of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Sec. 374 Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh and others (2), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court after considering number of cases including Balbir Singh's case have held that It is imperative for the investigating officer to inform the suspect, orally or in writing, about his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Failure to give such information may not vitiate the trial but render the recovery of illicit article illegal and vitiate the conviction and sentence if recorded only on the basis of possession of such illicit article. The Hon'ble Court further held that if the person so informed requires to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, the empowered officer is obliged to comply else it would render the search and conviction solely based on it bad.