9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and Mr. Bhoite, Superintendent of Customs acted as Gazetted officer) does not appeal to my conscience. Page no. 13 is the details about the search and seizure. No doubt, it is true that the Court of the JMFC was moved by making an application on 07/05/2021 at page no. 118. It also shows that learned Magistrate has taken the inventory and drawn few of the samples as mentioned in the para no. 14 of certificate on page no. 128 but fact remains that these samples were not sent to the Chemical Analyzer. Ultimately when the evidence will be adduced during the trial, there will not be Chemical Analyzer report available on the basis of the analysis done about samples taken before learned Magistrate what will be available is Chemical Analyzer rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the learned Special Judge, NDPS Satara. 3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant made following submissions:- a) There is non-compliance of the provisions of the Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. b) Page no. 28 is the notice. It does not mention about the right of the accused to be searched. It only mentions about necessity. c) The contention is raised even if nothing is found on the body still the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act needs to be complied with in letter and spirit. d) He relied upon following judgments:- (i) State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and Another [(2014) 5 SCC 345] (ii) Gurnam Singh @ Gagan Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 18/09/2015 by the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oli. This is clear violation. It is observed by learned Single Judge in case of Mr. Ravi Raju Mane and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, in Bail Application No. 2020 of 2017, decided on 10/11/2017. 4. As against this, learned Advocate for the Respondents contended that the issue about non-compliance of the Section 50 can be looked into during the trial and for that purpose observations in case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh [1999 (6) SCC 172] is relied upon and more specifically para no. 57(5). 5. It is also contended that observations in case of Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and Another, [(2016) 3 SCC 379] are duly complied with. 6. After going through submission and going through the papers, I am impressed by only one argument that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh s. State of Punjab, decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2023 on 09/05/2023, the Hon ble Supreme Court has refused to accept analysis done on the basis of the samples taken at the spot and set aside the conviction. 10. Learned Advocate for the Respondents submitted that in this case, this issue can be decided at the time of the trial. 11. Be that it may ultimately the trial will be conducted only on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. So, this contention can not be accepted. 12. So for above discussion, I think that Applicant has made out the case for bail. The contraband seized is commercial quantity. Bar under Section 37 is lifted. Hence, the Applicant is deserves to release on bail. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
