1987 (10) TMI 381 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the investigation conducted by an unauthorised officer.
2. Validity of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. Fairness of the trial and investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Investigation Conducted by an Unauthorised Officer:
The primary issue in the appeal was whether the investigation was conducted by an authorised officer under Section 42 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant's counsel contended that Shri Amanulla Khan, a Head Constable, was not authorised to exercise powers under Section 42 of the Act, which requires officers to be of a rank superior to a peon, sepoy, or constable. The court noted that powers under Section 42 were conferred on police officers only by a notification dated October 16, 1986, which authorised Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of police working as Station House Officers. Since the incident occurred on November 21, 1985, before this notification, neither Amanulla Khan nor the Station House Officer, Ram Chandra, had the jurisdiction to conduct the search, seizure, and arrest. The court concluded that the investigation was unauthorised, leading to a miscarriage of justice and vitiating the trial.

2. Validity of the Evidence Presented by the Prosecution:
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of PW 1 Amanulla Khan, who conducted the initial search and seizure, and PW 6 Ram Chandra, the Station House Officer. The court scrutinised the evidence and noted discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. PW 2 Jagdish Prasad and PW 3 Ram Swaroop, who were supposed to be independent witnesses, were declared hostile and did not corroborate the testimony of Amanulla Khan. The court found that the evidence presented was not convincing or positive enough to substantiate the prosecution's case.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Act:
The court examined whether the procedural requirements under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were followed. Section 42 of the Act mandates that only authorised officers can conduct searches, seizures, and arrests. The court noted that the legislature intended to exclude lower-ranking officers, such as constables, from exercising these powers to ensure fairness and prevent misuse. Since the investigation was conducted by an unauthorised officer, the court held that the procedural requirements were not complied with, rendering the investigation and subsequent trial invalid.

4. Fairness of the Trial and Investigation:
The appellant's counsel argued that the investigation was not fair and proper, and that the accused was not given a fair trial. The court agreed, noting that the investigation was conducted by an officer who was not authorised under the law, leading to a violation of the accused's rights. The court emphasised that the accused has a right to expect a fair investigation and trial, especially in cases where the minimum punishment is severe. The court concluded that the trial was not conducted in a fair manner, further vitiating the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment dated February 17, 1987, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, and acquitted the accused of all charges. The court ordered the immediate release of the accused, who was in jail. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring that investigations are conducted by authorised officers to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.