Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Sagar Arora vs State Of Punjab on 24 July, 2020
Learned counsel has referred to another order dated
24.07.2020 passed in CRM-M-15530-2020 (Sagar Arora Vs.
State of Punjab), wherein, with reference to precedents, it is held
that it will be a debatable issue as to the complicity of an accused
on the basis of legal parameters, whether requirement of Section
42 of NDPS Act is complied with or not, as the Gazetted Officer
was not the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that in the instant
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 06:27:11 :::
CRM-M-36430-2022 -7-
case, information was sent by an official of the rank of SI to
another official of rank of ASI and not to the higher police
officials. It is thus submitted that first recovery from the petitioner,
which is from her personal search, is 20 grams of heroin, whereas
the second recovery, after her arrest, on the basis of disclosure
statement, is 260 grams of heroin, therefore, it will be a debatable
issue whether second recovery was effected by following the
proper procedure. Learned counsel has lastly argued that since
the petitioner is in custody for the last about 02 months; she is first
offender; she is a lady, having 06 years old minor daughter, she
may be granted the concession of regular bail.
Dharampal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2010
Learned State counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner is deemed to be in possession of recovery effected from
her and has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
7 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 06:27:11 :::
CRM-M-36430-2022 -8-
in Dharampal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 (4) RCR (Crl.)
504, wherein opium was recovered from dickey of the car and two
accused, who were travelling in the said car, were held to be in
conscious possession. A perusal of this judgment would show that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding an appeal against the
judgment of conviction, on the basis of appreciation of the
evidence, held that in such circumstances, both the persons, who
were occupiers of the car, would be in conscious possession of the
contraband, however, in the instant case, the case is still at the
investigation stage and it is yet to be concluded by the prosecution
whether Sagar Kalyan @ Daddu, husband of the petitioner, being
head of the family, was in conscious possession of the recovery,
which was effected in terms of disclosure statement of the
petitioner, after her arrest, as from her personal search, only 20
grams of heroin was recovered, which falls in non-commercial
quantity."
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Arjan Singh And Anr vs The State Of Punjab And Ors on 8 October, 1968
Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.530 of
2012 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7118 of 2010 (Arjan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab), wherein it is observed that prosecution case is
improbable, when it is stated that the police had first gone to shop
of the accused and when nothing incriminating was found, he
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 06:27:11 :::
CRM-M-36430-2022 -6-
recorded the disclosure statement and recovery of some amount
was effected from his house. It is further observed that in other
words, the accused, by recording disclosure statement, seems to
have invited and led the police to the recovery of narcotic
substance, at his own instance and therefore, recovery seems to be
unnatural.