9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 2. Non-compliance of Sections 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act. 3. Whether the customs counter at the airport is a "public place". Summary: Issue 1: Non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Designated Court u/s 21 and 23 r/w Section 28 of the NDPS Act, where the respondent was acquitted due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The trial court found that the Search Officer did not reduce the information into writing nor gave any written intimation to his immediate superior, which is a mandatory requirement u/s 42. The court concluded that the area where the accused was intercepted was not a "public place" and thus, Section 42 was applicable. Issue 2: Non-compliance of Sections 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act The trial court found no non-compliance with Sections 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Sec. 50 were explained to the accused through an interpreter, and the search was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses. The panchnama was prepared on the spot, and the case property was deposited with the SDO Arrival. Issue 3: Whether the customs counter at the airport is a "public place" The trial court relied on the testimony of the Search Officer and another witness, concluding that the customs counter at the airport was not accessible to the public at large and entry was restricted. This conclusion was supported by a previous decision of the Delhi High Court in "Richard Thomas Wrigley v. Customs and Anr." where it was held that the customs counter at the airport is not a public place as it is not open to the general public without due permissions. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding no perversity in the reasoning that the search was not conducted at a public place and the mandatory requirements of Section 42 were not complied with. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the respondent.
|
