TULCHARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the search in the present case was conducted in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Opium Act and as such the search and seizure as also the conviction was vitiated. The contention is that the information which led to the search and seizure of Opium from the house of the petitioner was not taken down in writing and section 14 of the Act was, therefore, not complied with. It cannot be denied that 9 kg and 450 gms of opium contained in 10 bags of polythene were recovered from the house of the petitioner, as a result of the search carried out. The learned Sessions Judge has held that when opium in such a huge quantity is recovered from the petitioner, it cannot be held that the officer conducting the search has no reasonable belief that opium was kept concealed in the house of the petitioner and, in these circumstances, the search cannot be held to be illegal or without jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that in the search memo the officer conducting the search clearly mentioned that the search was conducted on the basis of the information supplied to him from a reliable source. The only argument which is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the information on the basis of which the search was conducted should have been recorded prior to the making of the search and not subsequent thereto. In my view, the provisions of section 14 were substantially complied with in the present case as P. W. 6 Shiv Prasad who conducted the search, has stated that he had reasons to believe, on the basis of reliable information received by him, that opium was unlawfully kept in the house of the petitioner. The discrepancies in complying that the provision of section 14, if any, in not reducing the information to writing before conducting the search is inconsequential when such information was reduced in writing in the search memo Exp. P.1. Moreover, when as a result of the in-formation received by P.W. 6 Shiv Prasad, he went to the house of the petitioner and conducted the search, huge quantity of opium weighing 9 kg and 450 gms was recovered, it cannot be held that there was no reasonable basis for conducting the search. Learned counsel relied upon a decision, of their Lordships Supreme Court in AIR 1979 S C, 711 but the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, in asmuch as in that case no record at all was made of any ground on the basis of which the officer conducting the search had reasonable belief that the offence under the Karnataka Excise Act was committed.

(2.) The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report of the Assistant Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory was not admissible. Even if that be so, the statement of P.W. 6 Shiv Prasad in the present case is sufficient to hold that the material which has been recovered from the house of the petitioner was opium, in as much as the said withnesses had testified that from the smell and taste he could say that the material found on search and which was seized, was opium.

(3.) In my view such anti-social elements cannot be let off merely on technical pleas when there is substantial evidence against them. Consequently I uphold the conviction of the petitioner in agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra.