Satya Narain Singh vs Union of India (UOI)

Krishna Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that u/s 53(a) of Narcotic Drugs Act, the statements of witnesses recorded by the Recovering Officer are admissible in evidence. It is contended that for the said recovery, two persons were kept to witness the recovery and the said persons were Kedar and Sanjay Kumar. The statement of the said witnesses, namely, Kedar and Sanjay Kumar recorded by the Recovering Officer has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 3 with the counter-affidavit and it was shown that the said witness stated that before the recoveries, officer asked the accused-applicant Satya Narain to make search of police personnel and public witnesses which was refused by the accused. Thereafter, the recovery proceedings were started and heroin was recovered. It was not stated by the said witness that before the recovery, Satya Narain accused was given option for the recovery to be made before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. If any such option would have been given, the same must have been mentioned by the witness. This option is very material and gives a material right to the accused and if this option is not corroborated by the public witness of recovery, it cannot be held that the said option was given only because it was written in the recovery memo.

The learned Counsel for the applicant further contended that there was no compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act also. It is contended that the recovery was started at 10 a.m. but the F.I.R. was lodged at 4 p.m. In Annexure-C.A. 6 of the counter-affidavit, the arrest is shown at 16 hours while the time of seizure is shown at 10 hours. There is no explanation of the delay of six hours.

The learned Counsel of the Union of India contended that there was compliance of Section 50, N.D.P.S. Act, as mentioned in the recovery memo, and therefore, there was no relevancy of the statement of witnesses Kedar and another. I am, however, not convinced with this contention. The learned Counsel of the applicant placed reliance upon XXXVIII (1999) ACC 609 to argue that compliance of Sections 50, 52, 55 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act was necessary for conviction. The judgment delivered by this Court was also referred in support of this contention wherein the bail was granted.

Considering the above facts and the case law, the bail application is allowed.

Let applicant Satya Narain Singh involved in Case Crime No. Nil of 2000 u/s 8/21, N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.C.B.N., Varanasi, district Ghazipur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M./Court concerned.