9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the evidence of Ritesh Kumar that he had asked the passerby to be witnesses but none of them agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses. On a careful perusal of their version nothing by which their evidence can be treated to be untrustworthy. On the contrary it is absolutely unimpeachable. As there is no absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their depositions should be treated with suspect therefore, the prosecution case cannot be doubted for non-examining the independent witnesses. Non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Held that:- In the case at hand 32 bags of poppy straw powder weighing 64 Kgs. had been seized from two bags. It has not been seized from the person of the acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icion in the mind of the Sub-Inspector and that led to the apprehension and interrogation of the accused. Eventually, on search of the bags, it was found that those contained 64 Kgs. of poppy straw powder packed in 32 bags of polythene. After the search was carried out samples were sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The investigating agency on completion of other formalities filed the charge-sheet before the trial Court. 3. The accused pleaded false implication and claimed to be tried. 4. On behalf of the prosecution eight witnesses were examined including the Sub-Inspector, Ritesh Kumar, and Constable Balwant Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2006, consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and that of the trial Court. It is noticeable that the evidence of PW-7, namely, Ritesh Kumar, has been supported by Balwant Singh, PW-5, as well as other witnesses. It has come in the evidence of Ritesh Kumar that he had asked the passerby to be witnesses but none of them agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses. On a careful perusal of their version we do not notice anything by which their evidence can be treated to be untrustworthy. On the contrary it is absolutely unimpeachable. We may note here with profit there is no absolute rule that police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their depositions should be treated with suspect. In this context we may refer with profit to the dictum in State of U.P. v. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions. 9. In Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar[(2006) 13 SCC 229], it has been opined as follows: - 26. It is now well settled that what is necessary for proving the prosecut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mise the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies, it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. We have no hesitation in holding that insofar as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict compliance. Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search. Thereafter, the suspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as laid down by this Court in the decision mentioned above, to facts of present case, it is clear that the compliance with Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, the search conducted by the investigating officer and the evidence collected thereby, is not illegal. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant as regards the non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act. 14. Tested on the bedrock of the aforesaid dictum, the contention, so assiduously raised, that there has been non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is wholly sans substance. 15. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
