IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 3150 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.12.2011. Rahul Pathania .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. B.S. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated November 26th, 2011 passed by Judge Special Court, Ropar whereby petitioner was ordered to be charged and accordingly charge- sheeted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The solitary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the search and seizure was made by Swaran Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector who was neither authorised nor empowered under Section Section 42 of the Act to conduct any search and seizure hence no cognizance could be taken from such search and seizure. 3. A perusal of Section 42 of the Act shows that the requirement of the provision is that the search or seizure should be made by the person who is authorised. A proviso has also been appended to the Section which mandates that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence, or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. Sub-section 2 further postulates that where an officer records grounds for his belief under the proviso, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. Criminal Revision No. 3150 of 2011 (2) 4. On the one hand, the provision is enacted to safeguard the accused against false implication but at the same time, it cannot be expected that at the cost of providing a safeguard, the investigating agency should let the material evidence to be concealed or the offender to flee. The officer sensing the exigency of the situation, if believes that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, may conduct search or seizure without such authorisation. In such a situation, the officer is required to send a copy of grounds to the immediate officer superior within seventy two years. 5. In the case in hand, when Swaan Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector got a secret information that the petitioner is selling charas, he instead of letting the accused run away or letting the evidence to disappear, conducted the search and seized the substances. It is not in dispute that a copy of grounds of belief was sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police in time. Thus, the requirement of provision stands fulfilled. 6. Finding no merit in the revision, the same is dismissed. 15.12.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE