TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Police Station. In the present case, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had also not been complied. Once the strict compliance was not made and defective offer was given to the respondent, the factum of the search of the respondent being carried out on the basis of search consent becomes inconsequential. In the present case, the link evidence was missing and there was failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody, transportation of case property and sanctity of the seals on the case property. The Investigating Officer had secret information that respondent was carrying 'Charas' and can be caught red handed but this secret information was not reduced into writing which is mandatory. From the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taran road towards graveyards of Mai Jeevan and if a naka was laid, he could be caught red handed. The police party started checking the spot and after 10-15 minutes, a young man carrying a black coloured bag on his left shoulder, was seen coming on foot from the side of Tarn Taran road. On seeing the police party, he tried to turn back, but was apprehended. On asking, he disclosed his name as Mangal Ram @ Arun. SI Palwinder Singh disclosed his identity and rank to the respondent and informed him that they suspected him to be carrying some intoxicant substance. The Investigating Officer had also apprised him of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The respondent did not repose confidence in the Investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2019 acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him. 7. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the present application seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the State. 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn our attention towards the recovery of 6 kgs. of charas from the conscious possession of the respondent and submits that the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act had been strictly complied with by the Investigating Officer and the Gazetted Officer Jaswinder Kaur, ACP (South), Amritsar (City). 9. It is further argued that during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, nothing substantial could be extracted except certain minor discrepancies which were bound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or nonsending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42, but if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. The trial Court had also rightly discussed that on being confronted with the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the said material witness of the prosecution, being Gazetted Officer of the police, had categorically deposed that no notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to the respondent either by her or by the Investigating Officer. PW-5 Jaswant Kaur, ACP had shown total ignorance with regard to the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Since no notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to the respondent, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied. Even the presence of PW-5 Jaswant Kaur, ACP at the spot is doubtful because in her crossexamination, she had spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
