AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. K. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents placed on record. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 821994. In the present application the plea of noncompliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has been taken. Reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 JT 178 : 1995 JIC 382 (SC).
I have gone through this decision and I would like to reproduce Paragraph 27 (2C) of the aforesaid decision which is as follows :
"(2C) Under Section 42 (1) the Empowered Officer if has a prior information given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if be has reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief."
In the present case, the Empowered Officer proceeded after receiving secret information and the search was conducted between sunrise and sunset.
Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that all precautions were taken while conducting search and recovery and 144 grams of heroin were recovered from the cavity below Petrol Tank of the Scooter owned by the applicant. Such large quantity of heroin cannot prima facie be considered to have been planted by the Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau.
The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is reasonable and I do not find any jurisdictional error. The revision is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.