Personal Search Done In The Presence Of ACP Is Not Bad Only Due To The ACP Belonging To The Police Department: (X - Hidden on Request) -Vs State Of Karnataka

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
02/02/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MR. H.P. SANDESH

PARTIES:
PETITONER: MR. X (Petitioner's Name Hidden on Request)
RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA

SUBJECT

According to the Karnataka High Court, a designated police official is not prohibited from conducting a personal investigation to establish a mahazar on an offender or a suspected person under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

OVERVIEW

1. According to the prosecutor, on June 22, 2021, at 1:00 P.M, the complainant got reliable evidence that five people were smuggling illicit drugs such as Ecstasy pills, ashes, and LSD strips to university students and ITBT workers.
2. The petitioner walked into the room with employees and panchas and arrested the criminal defendants. After arresting them, the ACP was obtained at 3.45 p.m., and they were exposed to a personal search and a panchanama was prepared.
3. Sections 8(c), 20(ii)(b), 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), and 27(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were used to detain the suspect X
4. He went to court to ask for bail in the matter. The appellants claimed that the investigation and confiscation were not conducted in front of the Gazetted Official, and that even if it was conducted in front of the Gazetted Official, the said Gazetted Official was indeed a part of the investigation, therefore he could not be called a Gazetted Official.
5. The appellant also stated that while the FIR states that narcotics were discovered in the room, and therefore, the division of the narcotics in the plaintiff's account is incorrect.
6. It was further claimed that the cops did not act fairly in the purported confiscation, and that the appellant was detained under unexplained grounds.
7. It was stated that the appellant, together with other alleged criminals, committed a criminal act, and that MDMA to the tune of 56.50 grammes were confiscated, as well as 250 grammes of hashish obtained at the plaintiff's request.
8. Furthermore, it was stated that non-compliance with Section 42 would not be a basis for enlarging the plaintiff's bail, and that the issue will be decided at court.
9. Later, it was also stated that it was too soon to consider and assess the issue of non-compliance with the requirements, and that the Court cannot review the evidence in terms of acceptability and non-compliance at this time, and that the Court must take more notice that it is a crime against public.

LEGAL PROVISON

Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

ISSUES

Whether any personal search that is conducted by the gazetted official ether by himself or in his presence is considered bad only because he belongs to the police department?

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

1. The High court after going through the pleas and the arguments stated that the raid was performed alongside employees and that the panchas and mahazar was created from 3.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., safeguarding the ACP who was the gazetted official in this issue, and subjected the appellant to search and concluded that the narcotics were discovered nowhere, and that ACP was also a component of the raid.
2. The High court also noted that itwas obvious that after arresting the suspect, the ACP had visited the appellant and enquired whether another Gazetted Official should be contacted, or he can search them personally.
3. The accused individual himself consented to be searched by the ACP, and the investigation was then carried out with the accused's permission.
4. Considering the present case, the High court noted that the personal search was done in the front of the Gazetted Official exclusively, and so, there was a conformity with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
5. The High court stated furthermore that Simple fulfilment of investigative process and submitting of charge-sheet was not really a basis to broaden the plaintiff on bail since he's been arrested by police and was caught by them along with drugs of bulk quantity, and besides, the Special Enactment was fully implemented when the IPC was insufficient to battle violations against the public and therefore to help stop the threat in the general public, the Special Enactment was made operational by the High court.
6. The High Court further mentioned that appellant and others were smuggling manufactured drugs to university students, ITBT workers, and the general population.
7. It was thus not a good case to utilize the judgment on behalf of the appellant and extend him on bail because the recovery was done at the plaintiff's request, and it was of a bulk quantity.

CONCLUSION

The High court stated that it cannot extend the appellant on bail until there was any legitimate ground that the appellant could prove himself innocent and promised to not participate in similar crimes thereafter, according to Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It went on to say that the Court must weigh the interests of the public, and if such activities were treated leniently, it would have an impact on the society.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement