Yamuna Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 6.12.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 15 of 2005, whereby question put to the witness during the cross-examination, has been rejected by the learned Court below.

From the impugned order, it appears that in the N.D.P.S. Case, the officer-in-charge of the Latehar Police Station was being examined as PW-1, and during his cross-examination, he was asked the question as to ''whether he was authorised to lodge the FIR or not, and also to make the search and whether there is any notification''. The said question was refused by the Court, stating that this is an argumentative question and should not be put to the witness. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused petitioner has filed this revision application before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW-1 was not authorised u/s 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to make the search and seizure and that is why this question was put to him in his cross-examination by the defence, which is a very relevant question.

In my considered view, when the evidence of the Police Officer was being recorded, he already had disclosed his rank and designation during his evidence. Whether the said officer is authorised under the law or not, for lodging the FIR, or making the search and seizure, is pure a question of law and does not depend on any answer given by the witness. The Court has very rightly rejected the question put to the witness during cross-examination. As such, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and same is accordingly, dismissed. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned forthwith.