MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dated June 26, 1987, of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh camp at Sangaria, convicting and sentencing the accused under section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') to ten years R. F. and a fine of rupees one lack, in default of payment of fine to 2-1/2 years further imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on December 18, 1985, Shri Dalu Ram, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,was informed that a person was selling intoxicating drugs near the bus stand of Sangaria. Shri Dalu Ram went to the spot and found the accused selling the intoxicating tablets. THE accused was arrested and 31 tablets were recovered from his possession. He was not having any licence for the same. Shri Dalu Ram packed and sealed the tablets. A sample of five tablets out of the said lot was packed and sealed separately for being sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. THE sample tablets as also the other remaining 26 tablets were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. On examination, the Deputy Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory found that the tablets contained Methaqualone as active ingredient along with sugar and starch. He was of the opinion that the preparation was covered under the category 'dangerous drugs'.

(3.) IN Urnrao v. State of Rajasthan (2) Hon'ble Farooq Hassan, J. , following the aforesaid decision held as under: - "applying the preposition of law extracted above, I am of the opinion that in the instant case, where the search was made by a police constable without jurisdiction and investigation was also made by an officer who was not empowered to do so under section 42 of the Drugs Act by a special order of the State Government on the day when the offence is said to have been committed by the appellant. Umrao, because admittedly, Chhaganlal (PW 8) S. H. O, had no jurisdiction express or implied even vested in him on August 1, 1986 the day of occurrence and the powers were only conferred upon such officers like Chhaganlal, after the notification dated October 16, 1986 came into effect; and as such, very foundation of the Case is without authority of law. And the conviction against the appellant under section 17 of the Drugs Act can not sustain warranting acquittal of the accused. IN view of the peculiar circumstances, other points raised need not be gone into as the aforesaid point all alone is sufficient to dispose of this case. "