TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation namely ASI Walaiti Ram by way of sending a ruqa stating factum of receipt of secret information, before the vehicle in question was intercepted and before recovery was effected, which would be sufficient compliance of section 42 of the Act - it is a case covered under Section 43 of the Act, the contention raised by learned counsel regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act cannot be accepted. Additionally, the recovered quantity of contraband which falls in the category of commercial quantity would attract fetters imposed by Section 37 of the Act in the matter of grant of bail - there is nothing on record at this stage from which it could be inferred that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence in question. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M- 22004 -2020(O&M) - - - Dated:- 5-1-2021 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill Present: Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate, counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Sandhu, Addl. Advocate, General, Punjab for State. ORDER Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. 1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 294 dated 26.11.2018, at Police Station: Bhawanigarh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since intimation by way of a ruqa was sent to SHO before ASI Walaiti Ram proceeded to lay barricading and before the car was intercepted, the same would duly satisfy the requirements of Section 42 of the Act pertaining to taking down the information in writing and conveying the same to superior officer. The learned State counsel, while pressing into service a judgement of Constitution Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in a case reported as 2009(8) SCC 539 Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana has submitted that non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, if any, would not ipso-facto vitiate the trial if no prejudice had been caused to the accused. 6. The learned State counsel has further submitted that in any case Section 42 of the Act would not have any application as it is a case of recovery of contraband from a vehicle in transit and which would be covered by Section 43 of the Act and not Section 42 of the Act. It has further been submitted that since it is a case of recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband wherein the petitioner was caught red-handed, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. It is a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V-A of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector : Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful. 9. In State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh and others, 2004(5) SCC 188, the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows : Section 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section 42 contemplates entry into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the sunrise. . 10. The aforesaid position of law was reiterated by Supreme Court in State, NCT of Delhi vs. Malvinder Singh 2007(11) SCC 314, in a case of recovery of opium from dicky of a private scooter, which has been followed by a Division Bench of our High Court in 2012(2) RCR(Criminal) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
