NISAR AHMAD Vs. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitoner is challengng the order dated 23-4-2005 passed by the Special Judge of N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against him for offences under Section 8/21 with the aid of Section 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act (henceforth to be referred to as the Act", for short).

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 4-9-2004 the Narcotic Control Bureau (henceforth to be referred to as "the Bureau", for short) searched a truck at the P. W.D. Dak Bungalow, Jaipur between 12.00 to 2.30 p.m. Allegedly, they recovered 4.2 kg. of heroin. Since heroin was recovered from the truck, its driver Prahlad Singh was arrested. Earlier in the day and far away at 8-10 p.m. the petitioner was arrested at old Delhi Railway Station. His statement was recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The said statement is incriminatory in nature. Subsequently, the Intelligence Officer, Narendra Kumar Sharma, submitted a complaint before the Special Court of N.D.P.S. Cases, Jaipur againstthe petitioner and few others. After hearing the arguments on the framing of charge, vide order dated 23-4-2005, the learned Judge framed the charges as aforementioned. Hence," this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Anil Upman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before this Court, firstly, that the confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act are not admtssible'in evidence. For, the said statements were recorded after the petitoner was arrested. Therefore, the statements are hit by Sections 34 and 25 of the Evidence Act. Secondly, that the Intelligence Officer, Narendra Kumar Sharma, is not authorized to file a complaint under Section 36(1)(d) of Act. Moreover, he is not competent to exercise the power under Sections 42 and 67 of the Act. Therefore, the entire trial stands vitiated.