2000 (12) TMI 899

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and in the event of default in the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The prosecution version is that on 18-2-1995 SI/SHO Baljit Singh along with ASI Subhash Chander, Head Constable Om Prakash and other police personnel was present at Village Talwani in connection with nakabandi, a Maruti van of white colour came towards them and was signalled to stop but instead of stopping the same, it was driven with speed. After going at some distance the van turned turtle and two persons from the said van alighted and started running away. After some....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emanded the Maruti van for his personal use. Thereafter, on the next day the Maruti van was given to him (SI Baljit Singh). On the following day a Constable came and informed him to take away the Maruti van from Police Station Siwani. There he found that the Maruti van was damaged due to an accident. It is his further say that he told Baljit Singh that he should get it repaired. Hearing this, he became furious and informed him that he should come there on the next day. On the next day i.e. on 19-2-1995 when he went to the police station, he was informed that the van was involved in a criminal case. He was also informed that if he argued further he would also be implicated in the case. He denied acquaintance with the appellant. The trial ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onstable Om Prakash. At the time of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before carrying out search, notice required to be given under Section 50 of the Act was not given, therefore, the search is illegal and the accused is required to be acquitted. In our view, this submission is without any substance. No suggestion was made to any of the witnesses that first search was carried out and thereafter the accused was informed whether he intended to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is the prosecution version that on suspicion the accused was informed and notice was given whether he intended to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Learned counsel for the appellant further....