Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fauji Ram vs State Of Haryana on 10 July, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1988CRILJ297
Author: M.M. Punchhi
Bench: M.M. Punchhi
ORDER M.M. Punchhi, J.
1. This is a petition for bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on a disclosure statement on 15-4-1986 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, he led the police party to a place of concealment and got recovered a substance weighing two Kgs. allegedly opium. The petitioner was arrested there and then. It now transpires that the Chemical Examiner has opined that the sample extracted therefrom was opium. Statedly, challan has been put in by the prosecution in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal.
3. The enactment and application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) with effect from 14-11-1985 has completely altered the traditional course adopted in such like cases. Section 18 of the NDPS Act, whereunder possession of opium is punishable, prescribes punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and the offender shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. The Court, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, may even impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. Offences under the Opium Act, 1878, which stands now repealed under Section 82 of the NDPS Act, were required to be tried by a Magistrate Ist Class, for the punishment then was low and the trial was within his jurisdiction. Now, as it is obvious, a Magistrate of the Ist Class is empowered under Section 29 of Cri. P.C. to pass only a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or of fine not exceeding five thousand rupees, or of both. This offence thus would have to be tried by a Court of Session and that too presumably on commitment under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, imperative that such like cases be dealt with expeditiously as otherwise it would tend to put the offenders unnecessarily in jail for long periods of incarceration. On the other hand, in view of the seriousness of the offence which the Legislature has viewed by the enactment of NDPS Act, the matter of bail cannot be treated casually or the offenders cannot be released on bail on small amount of bonds.
4. Thus, the mean course which I adopt in the instant case is to direct the learned Magistrate, before whom the challan has been put in, to effect commitment forthwith to the Court of Session and order trial of the petitioner by the latter to conclude by 18th Aug. 1986, failing which the Court of Session shall release the petitioner on bail on a heavy bond as found suitable by that Court.
5. This petition is disposed of in these terms.