LexKARNAIL SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KARNAIL SINGH v. ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN SEPTEMBER 13, 2000 B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI,JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 51, 52 (3) (a), (b), 53, 55-Appellant was searched by the preventive party of the Narcotic Bureau-Samples were taken and the FIR was lodged before C Superintendent, Central Narcotic Bureau-High Court upheld conviction made by Trial Court-On appeal held, officer required to affix seal under Section 55 is the officer incharge of the nearest police station distinguished from officers mentioned in Section 53-Jf arrested person is forwarded to officer incharge of the nearest police station then procedure under Section D 55 would apply, but if he is forwarded to an officer mentioned in Section 53 then similar procedure cannot be insisted-No procedural irregularity- Conviction upheld Sections 42 and 43-Applicability-Provisions of Section 42 would not apply if action is taken without personal knowledge or information of E the officer. Section 35-Presumption-Held, burden of proof not discharged in any manner as offence was committed with a conscious mind and with full knowledge-Presumption not rebutted F A preventive party of the Narcotic Bureau apprehen4ed the appellant and told him that they suspected presence of opium in his truck. The truck was driven to the Control Room of Central Narcotic Bureau after he conveyed that any officer or employee could conduct the search. The suspected bags were seized and sealed by the officers and some samples were taken. He signed the panchnama and was later on arrested. The samples proved to be G opium and investigation began after the First Information Report was lodged in the office of the Superintendent, Central Narcotic Bureau. Trial Court convicted him. High Court upheld the conviction reducing the sentence. Hence this appeal. H Appellant contended before this Court that the mandate of Section 55 250 - KARN AIL SINGH v. ST ATE OF RAJAS THAN 251 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was not A followed; and that no presumption under Section 35 of the Act could be drawn as the onus of proof regarding absence of culpable mental state had already been discharged by him. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 mandates an officer in-charge of a police station to take charge B and keep in safe custody the articles seized under the Act within the local area of that police station which may be delivered to him and shall allow any officer who may accompany such article to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples C of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-incharge of the police station. Section 51 read with Section 52 and 53 would mean, the officer required to affix the seal etc. under Section 55, would be "the officer incharge of the nearest police station" as distinguishable from the officer incharge of a police station empowered D under Section 53. If resort is had to the procedure prescribed under Section 52 (3) (a) where the arrested person is forwarded to the officer incharge of the nearest police station the applicability of Section 55 would be attracted but if the arrested person and the seized articles are forwarded under Section 52 (3) (b) to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act, the compliance of Section 55 cannot be insisted upon. [257-F-H; 258-A-B] E 1.2. The distinction between the officer incharge of the nearest police station and the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act is distinct and clear based upon a reasonable object, because as in case the person and the seized articles are referred to the 'officer incharge of the nearest police station,' a distinct agency, than the officers contemplated under section 53, F comes into the picture which requires the taking ofsufficient safeguards to protect the seized property in the interests of the arrested persons. The distinction is also evident from Section 52A(2). [258-D] 2. For attracting applicability of Section 42, it is necessary that the G officer empowered thereunder, before exercise of his right, should have reason to believe from personal knowledge or information regarding the· movement of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. If action is taken without his personal k
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.