Plea of non-issuing of search warrant by Court–Effect–Provision of S. 20 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 was couched in such manner that the same does not place mandatory obligation upon investigating agency to obtain search warrant from Special Judge before conducting raid–Word “may” as used in S. 20, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 would indicate that law has not prescribed consequences of conducted search without obtaining warrants from Special Court–Provision of S. 20 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was thus, directory in nature–No prejudice had been caused to petitioner by conducting raid at his house wherefrom huge quantity of charas was recovered–As for entitlement for protection of Art. 14 of the constitution was concerned, due care had been taken by raiding party as the same was not only headed by high officials of police department but was also accompanied by Duty Magistrate–Police party thus, had not committed any violation of fundamental right of petitioner conferred upon him by Art. 14 of the constitution–Petitioner’s plea that house from where recovery of charas was effected was not under the exclusive control of petitioner but many people lived there was repelled in view of S. 29 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 whereby burden was upon petitioner to have proved that articles in question, were not recovered from his exclusive possession but someone else residing in the same house was in possession–High Court, thus, had correctly maintained conviction of petitioner–There being no merit in petition for leave to appeal, the same was dismissed in circumstances. PLJ 2001 SC 328
Possession on of narcotic drugs accused was apprehended with 10 piece of charge total 1000 grams whereas only one piece of 100 grams was sent for chemical examination was yet to be seen as to whether remaining 9 pieces of charas weighing 900 grams was charas or not double 1000 grams of charas would brings the case of accused within the definition of S.9(b) of control of narcotic substances Act, 1997 but it was simply a fraction of weight above the limits keeping the offence within the ambit of S.9(a) of the Act which was punishable with 2 years imprisonment and fine when the offence did not fall within prohibition contained under S. 497, Cr. P. C , then grant of bail was a rule and refusal was an exception no exceptional circumstances disentitling accused for grant of bail, having been pointed out, bail was granted to accused .
This site is protected by wp-copyrightpro.com
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.