TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Himmat Singh, Deputy Advocate General ORDER INDERJIT SINGH, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by Hardeep Singh-appellant challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.4.2004/3.4.2004 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal, whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 15(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 15(b) of the Act. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 6.12.2011, ASI Varinder Singh of CIA-II, Karnal along with other police officials was present at Bus Stand, Dachar, in connection with detection of crime. In the meanwhile, ASI Varinder Singh received a secret information that accused Hardeep Singh used to sell poppy straw at his house situated in the eastern side of the village and on that day he was selling the poppy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m by SI Bhagat Ram for handing over the same to the Illaqa Magistrate, SP, DSP etc. and he handed over the same accordingly well in time. He also took sample parcels from MHC Mohinder Singh for handing over the same in the office of FSL, which he handed over. PW-4 Lehna Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Nissing has supported the prosecution version. PW-5 HC Parmal Singh is the recovery witness, who was with the police party. He also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-6 ASI Varinder Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case, who deposed regarding conducting the investigation of this case. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution, but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also stated that he has been falsely implicated by the Police due to enmity. In defence, he examined DW-1 Joga Singh and DW-2 Hardeep Singh son of Udham Singh. After going through the evidence on record, the learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal, vide its impugned judgment dated 1.4.2004 and order dated 3.4.2004 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieve to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV. Sub-section (2) of Section 41 refers to issue of authorisation for similar purposes by the officers of the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence, etc. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act lays down, that the empowered officer, if he has a prior information given by any person, should necessarily take it down in writing, and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge, that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building, etc. he may carry out the arrest or search, without warrant between sunrise and sunset and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief. The two separate procedures noticed above are exclusive of one another. Compliance of one, would not infer the compliance of the other. In the circumstances contemplated under Section 42 of the NDPS Act the mandate of the procedure contemplated therein will have to be followed separately, in the manner interpreted by this Court in Karnail Singh's case (supra) and the same will not be assumed, mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of section (42) from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1). (b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior. (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
