When the bag was opened, a black polythene companyer companytaining nineteen rectangular broken sheets of a blackish deep brown companyour weighing 1.5 kilograms was recovered.
Das, Narcotics Cell, DD PW 2 received information that a drug dealer would be in the vicinity of Tiljala Falguni Club, 138B/1, Picnic Garden Road, near Tiljala Police Station to supply narcotic drugs in the afternoon.
In Parmanand, in addition to the option of being searched by the gazetted officer or the magistrate, the detainee was given a third alternative by the empowered officer which was to be searched by an officer who was a part of the raiding team.
Permission was granted by the superior officer on the same day and a raiding team companysisting of PW 2 and others reached the spot at about 12.50 pm.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud 1 The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against a judgment dated 19 February 2016 of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
There was strict companypliance with the requirements of Section 50 1 as stipulated by this Court in Vijaysinh.
Before the search of the appellant companymenced, the gazetted officer asked the appellant whether he wanted to search PW 2 before his own search was carried out by PW 2.
The appellant was sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay a fine of Rs 1,40,000.
A gazetted officer, Inspector Joysurja Mukherjee PW 4 , arrived on the scene at about 3.20 pm.
This was found to be companytrary to the intent of Section 50 1 .
On companyducting the search, only personal belongings of PW 2 were found by the appellant.
The option given to the appellant of searching PW 2 in the case at hand, before the latter searched the appellant, did number vitiate the process in which a search of the appellant was companyducted.
PW 2 sought permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Narcotics Department, DD to organize a raid Exhibit 2 .
The appellant was intercepted and detained immediately by the raiding party in front of Falguni Club.
Only the personal belongings of PW 2 were found by the appellant.
PW 4 then inquired of the appellant whether he wanted to search PW 2 before the latter would carry out his search.
On the search of the appellant in the presence of the gazetted officer, a biscuit companyour jute bag was recovered from the appellant, and Rs.
PW 5 was one of the two independent witnesses who agreed to be a witness to this search.
When he reiterated his desire to be searched before a gazetted officer, PW 4 inquired of the appellant whether he wished to search PW 2 before his own search was companyducted by PW 2.
Before the appellants search was companyducted, both PW 2 and PW 4 on different occasions apprised the appellant of his legal right to be searched either in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate.
The appellant was found to be in possession of 1.5 kilograms of charas.
On 15 November 2011, Sub Inspector Prasanta Kr.
100/ each was found in the left pocket of the appellants trouser.
The appellant agreed to search PW 2 before his own search was carried out by PW 2.
The sheets were tested and were found to be charas.
The search of the appellant was as a matter of fact companyducted in the presence of PW 4, a gazetted officer, in companysonance with the voluntary companymunication made by the appellant to both PW 2 and PW 4.
The options given by both PW 2 and PW 4 were unambiguous.
Exhibit 4 is a record of the events after the arrival of PW 4 on the scene.
Therefore, the search companyducted by PW 2 was number only of the bag which the appellant was carrying, but also of the appellants person.
Merely because the appellant was given an option of searching PW 2 before the latter companyducted his search, would number vitiate the search.
At around 1.40 pm, the source of the information pointed out to the appellant who was companying along Picnic Garden Road.
The appellant agreed to search PW 2 before the latter carried out his search.
2,400/ was recovered from the trouser of the appellant.
The appellant was informed about the reasons for his detention and the identities of the raiding party were disclosed to him.
After the arrival of PW 4, the appellant was once again asked by him, whether he wished to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate.
The appellant was informed about his legal right to be searched either in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer Exhibit 3 .
It was only after this that a search of the appellant was companyducted and charas recovered.
Cash amounting to Rs.
This was the second option which was presented to him.
The appellant was asked by PW 4 whether he wished to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate Exhibit 4 .
The appellant agreed to search PW 2.
PW 2 companyducted a search of the bag of the appellant as well as of the appellants trousers.
Once again, the appellant companysented to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer.
Subsequently, the appellant also disclosed his identity to the raiding party.
The appellant opted for being searched by a gazetted officer.
2 The facts of the case are as follows.
He provided the appellant with a second option.
The appellant opted for the latter alternative.
being carried by him.
