TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... police. Furthermore no evidence with regard to bias or malice against the Investigating Agency has been adduced. In the wake of the above, we are of the unhesitant opinion in the face of the evidence on record, that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The Courts below have appreciated the materials on record in the correct legal and factual perspectives and the findings recorded do not merit any interference. The appeal is thus dismissed. The Trial Court is hereby directed to take immediate follow up the steps so as to ensure that the sentence awarded is served out by the accused persons. - Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO.6093 OF 2015) - - - Dated:- 28-11-2016 - Dipak Misra And Amitava Roy, JJ. JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. (1) Heard Ms. Aparna Jha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Madhukar, learned counsel for the respondent. (2) The appellant, faced with concurrent determinations culminating in his conviction along with another, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act ) is before this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh, PW-3/M.H.C. Shamsher Singh, PW-4/A.S.I. Satnam Singh, PW-5/H.C. Darbara Singh and PW-6 Parminderpal Singh, who had participated in the entire drill. (7) All the incriminating circumstances were laid before the accused persons in course of their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the correctness thereof and complained of false implication. (8) The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence on record and after analysing the rival contentions held the charge to be proved and convicted and sentenced both the accused persons as above. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the conviction and sentence before the High Court. (9) The learned counsel for the appellant has asserted that as the Investigating Agency had contravened the mandatory prescriptions of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is patently illegal and non est in law. According to her, though allegedly Poppy Husk was recovered from the car in which the appellant and the co-accused were travelling at the relevant point of time, adherence to the mandate of Section 50 of the Act was indispensable. Similarly, as no report of the operation undertaken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay and that the related FIR with the necessary endorsements therein had reached the Ilaka Magistrate on the same date i.e. 28.08.2007 at 9 p.m. There is no evidence forthcoming or referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner to either contradict or decimate this finding based on records. In this view of the matter as well, the assertion of non-compliance of Section 57 of the Act does not commend for acceptance. In our view, having regard to the facts available, the requirements of Section 57 of the Act had been duly complied with as well. (15) The decision in Mohinder Kumar (supra) not only is distinguishable on facts, as the search therein was of the petitioner's premises, the investigation was afflicted as well by several other omissions on the part of the authority conducting the same. Though in this rendering, it was observed that in State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299 the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act had been held to be mandatory in character, it is pertinent to note that this Court in Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 692 had exposited that Section 57 was not mandatory in nature so much so that if a substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
