Telangana High Court
P.Mohan vs State Of Telangana on 27 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12797 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1381 of 2022 on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) & 8(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act have not been followed in this case and therefore, the Final Report and also the FIR have to be quashed against the petitioner herein.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 50 of the Act, the petitioner should be informed in writing about his option of being searched before a Gazetted officer or a 2 TMD,J Crl.P.No.12797 OF 2023 Magistrate and his acceptance should be obtained in writing and only when can the search be made.
5. However, after going through the Final Report, it is noticed that the petitioner was served with the copy of Notice under Section 50 of the Act and obtained their acceptance and only thereafter, the Additional Inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police Station in the capacity of Gazetted officer conducted the search and LW-1 recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused persons.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. and Parmanand and Another 1, in support of her contention that the petitioner should be informed in writing about his option of being searched before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate.
7. However, after going through the judgment, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is imperative for the officer to give prior intimation to the accused about his rights under Section 50 of the Act and that information may not necessarily be in writing. This judgment therefore will not help the petitioner in any way.
1(2014) 5 SCC 345 3 TMD,J Crl.P.No.12797 OF 2023
8. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Gazetted officer cannot be a policeman and in support of this contention, she has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Nithin Vs. State of Kerala, in Bail application No.946 of 2023.
9. However, from the said judgment, it is also noticed that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held that any police officer being Gazetted officer is a qualified and competent Gazetted officer for search of a person as stipulated in Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, this judgment also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
10. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 27.12.2023 PVT 4 TMD,J Crl.P.No.12797 OF 2023 176 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12797 of 2023 Date: 27.12.2023 PVT