State of Punjab vs Acchar Singh

B.S. Nehra, J.

On 2.6.1986, a police party headed by Head Constable Balbir Singh was on patrol duty. When they were in the area of village Melak Kangan, Acchar Singh, respondent, was seen coming from the side of the river with a gunny bag over his head. This aroused the suspicion of the police party. Accordingly he was apprehended. On his personal search eight kilograms of poppy husk was recovered. 100 grams of poppy husk was taken out as sample by the police. The sample and the remaining poppy husk were separately sealed. The Investigating Officer sent intimation Exhibit PB to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal first information report Exhibit PB/1 was recorded. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PD and the completion of the investigation, the respondent was sent up for the trial. On being charged under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act''), he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to bring home the charge to the respondent; examined PW1 Head Constable Balbir Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, and PW2 Constable Mohinder Singh, witness to the recovery of contraband. The latter corroborated the testimony of Head Constable, Balbir Singh. PW 2 Head Constable Sajjan Singh testified regarding the deposit with him of the case property with seals intact. The prosecution also relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PD and the affidavits of the formal witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He, however, did not produce any evidence in his defence. The trial Court after consideration of the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that PW 1 Head Constable Balbir Singh had no authority to seize, search and arrest under the Act as no such powers had been conferred on him under Section 42 of the Act and, therefore, vide his judgment dated 2.6.1988 acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him. Feeling aggrieved against this judgment, the State of Punjab has filed his appeal.

After hearing Shri. Randhir Singh learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant and Shri. S.C. Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent, we find no ground to disagree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court.

Under section 42 of the Act, the Central and the State Governments have been vested with the powers to authorise various categories of officers to exercise functions under the Act. According to the learned trial Judge, the prosecution had failed to prove that PW1 Head Constable Balbir Singh had been authorised to effect seizure, search and arrest an accused under this provision. Even the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court had conceded that PW 1 Head Constable Balbir Singh had not been so authorised. In this background, he (PW1 Head Constable Balbir Singh) was neither competent to search nor arrest the respondent as he had not authority vested in him under the Act. In this connection, reference may also be made to the authority reported as Nand Lal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1987(3) Crimes 629, which supports this view. The learned trial Court was therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion, as it did, that the very foundation of the prosecution case suffers from the lack of competence of the Investigating Officer. We affirm this finding.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.