Raj Mohan Singh JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2015 passed by Judge Special Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four and half months along with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. In brief the prosecution story is that on 19.09.2013, police party was on patrolling. When the police party was present at Langeri Chowk near Maruti Suzuki Agency, Garhshankar road Mahilpur, they found a person coming on foot. On seeing the police party, he tried to turn back. He was arrested on suspicion. On being asked, he disclosed his name as Deepak Rana. Investigating Officer introduced himself to the accused and apprised him about his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused reposed his faith in the Investigating Officer. A consent memo was prepared. An effort was made to join public person, but none showed his/her willingness by citing personal problems. On personal search of the accused, white intoxicating powder wrapped in plastic envelope was recovered. Two samples of 5/5 grams each were taken out and remaining quantity was weighed which came out to be 40 grams. The case property was sealed and sample parcels were prepared. The accused was produced before the SHO, who also affixed his seal on the case property.
3. After considering the material on record, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the appellant has already undergone more than five months of actual sentence as against four and half months, but she wants to argue the case on merits because on the basis of conviction of the appellant, his services were terminated by the employer.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that keeping in view the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, compliance of Section 50 of the Act was mandatory in nature. Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with. Learned counsel relied upon Gurjant Singh @ Janta Vs. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/1112/2013 : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 874 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the ratio of State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh, MANU/SC/0436/1994 : 1994 (1), RCR (Criminal) 736, State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, MANU/PH/1148/1993 : 1993 (3), RCR (Criminal) 533 and State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar, 2005 (2) RCR (Criminal) 622 has held that when the Investigating Officer on noticing contraband felt the need of invoking Section 50 of the Act and gave offer to the accused, then Principle No. 1 as held in para No. 25 of Balbir Singh's case (supra) would not apply. Once notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to the accused, then it was imperative on the part of the officer intending search to comply with requirement of Section 50 of the Act mandatorily.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that no effort was made to join ........