Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadik Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 MCRC-53521-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 53521 of 2021
(SADIK ALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 06-12-2021
Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Punit Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard.
This third application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in
connection with Crime No.179/2020 registered at Police Station Kareli,
District Narsinghpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20 and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the
'NDPS Act, 1985').
The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide
order dated 05.11.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.23988/2020 and the second
one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.06.2021 passed in
M.Cr.C. No.27224/2021 and one connected application with liberty to move
a fresh one after recording the statement of the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Investigating Officer
has been recorded and as per the applicant the Investigating Officer was not
authorized to conduct proceeding under the provisions of the NDPS Act,
1985. He placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 2001 CRI. L.J. 165
(Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala) in which the Supreme Court has quashed all
the proceedings initiated by the officer not competent to do so. According to
Shri Jain, the present Investigating Officer was not competent to initiate
proceeding in view of the State Notification dated 11 th November, 1985 F.
No. B-6-35-V-SR-85-4804.
However, considering the submission made by the counsel for the
applicant and looking to the notification issued by the State Government
dated 11th November, 1985 published in the M.P. Gazette on 14 th November,
1985 authorizing the officers of police department under the provisions of
2 MCRC-53521-2021
Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the Sub-Inspector and Assistant-Sub
Inspector have also been authorized to initiated proceeding under the
provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. In the present case, it is not disputed that
the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-9 Sanjay Suryavanshi, at the relevant point of
time was posted at Police Station Kareli on the post of Assistant Sub-
Inspector and as such, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of
Roy V.D. (supra) is not applicable in the present case.
Although, the counsel for the applicant is trying to establish that the
Investigating Officer was in fact a member of crime squad/special team and
therefore, he was not treated to be posted in respective police station.
However, I am not convinced with the submission made by the counsel for
the applicant because from paragraph-21 of cross-examination of the
Investigating Officer it is clear that though he was member of crime
squad/special team constituted by the Superintendent of Police Narsinghpur
at the relevant point of time, but his substantive posting was at Police Station
Kareli. It is apt to mention that the special team of crime squad is constituted
at local level just to control crime by the higher officer of the police
department but that team has no specific identity under the police regulation
or under any Act. As such, the submission made by the counsel for the
applicant has no substance.
Considering the aforesaid since the officer initiated the proceeding and
made search was authorized by the State Government and has power as per
sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and can also initiate
proceeding as per Section 42, therefore, the bail application does not have
any substance and it is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
ANIL CHOUDHARY
2021.12.08
11:04:11 +05'30'
