E-Paper
Court acquits man in drugs case as gazetted officer didn’t search him prior arrest
On September 20, 2017, head constable Mahendra Kumbhar from the Bandra unit of the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) received information that one person was dealing in Mephedrone – a psychotropic substance – in the suburbs
Mumbai: A special NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) court on Friday acquitted a 42-year-old Bandra resident, who was arrested for allegedly possessing 54 grams of Mephedrone, as none of the officers who searched and apprehended him was a gazetted officer. The accused has been identified as Abdul Mutalip Rizvani.
On September 20, 2017, head constable Mahendra Kumbhar from the Bandra unit of the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) received information that one person was dealing in Mephedrone – a psychotropic substance – in the suburbs.
Based on the information, a trap was arranged, and Rizvani was apprehended. The prosecution claimed that while searching Rizvani, the police found 54 grams of Mephedrone. He was booked under relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and arrested.
During the trial, Rizvani denied all the allegations. His lawyer contended that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution case and that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses though he was claimed to have been apprehended in a public place.
His lawyer also pointed out that the panch witness Isaaq Yasin Khan, who acted as an independent witness to his personal search and alleged recovery of the contraband material from him, had acted as a panch witness in an earlier drugs case against some other person as well.
The accused brought to the notice of the special NDPS court that Khan had in his testimony stated that he acted as a panch witness for the first time in the present case, but Rizvani produced a record of another case in which Khan had acted as a panch witness.
The court, however, held that it cannot be firmly said that it is the same person who acted as a panch witness in both cases, merely because of the similarities in the name.
The special court, however, accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the accused that the mandatory provisions pertaining to the search of a person suspected to be carrying narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances were not complied with. The court said that it is mandatory that the accused should be searched only by a gazetted officer but none of the policemen who searched and apprehended Rizvani was a gazetted officer and hence the court acquitted him.