IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10661 of 2009 ***** Vijay Kumar Singh son of late Ram Chandra Singh, resident of Mohalla- Chitratoli Road Ara, P.S. Ara Town, Dist. Bhojpur. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Raj Narayan Bhagat Sub Inspector, Ara Town Thana, Dist-Bhojpur. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Bindhya Keshri Kumar, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate For the State : Dr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. ------------- 4. 30.6.2009. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 27.1.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in N.D. Case No. 21 of 1991, which arises out of Ara Town P.S. Case No.112 of 91. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has rejected a petition of the petitioner and he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 8C, 21, 27A, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against all the accused persons including the present petitioner. Short facts are that on a confidential information received by the Sub Inspector, namely, Raj Narayan Bhagat, he along with A.S.I. Ashok Giri and the police party reached one Arvind hotel and carried out a search of the room no.7. The search led to seizure of 6 kg. ganza which was hidden under the bed and many persons were present in the room including the present petitioner. One of the persons, namely, Marani Devi made a statement that she along with Rekha Kumari and Dhruv Singh - 2 - were engaged in the business of smuggling of ganza from village Masarh. The hotel in question was a transit point and the present petitioner who happens to be the owner of the said Arvind hotel and the Manager of the hotel always cooperated and facilitated the said activity. On the basis of the said seizure and statement the F.I.R. came to be registered and the matter was further investigated. On completion of investigation charge sheet came to be submitted against all the accused persons on 16.7.1991 but for some reason no cognizance of the offences was taken for many a years till the impugned order in question came to be passed. This has given the cause of action for the petitioner to challenge the said action in the present application. Submissions have been made at the Bar by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Sub Inspector in question was not empowered to carry out search and seizure as envisaged in the N.D.P.S. Act specially Section 41(2) and 41(1) and, therefore, the entire search and seizure being illegal the proceeding itself is fit to be quashed including the order taking cognizance. It is also urged that the cognizance has been taken almost after 18 years and such delay in taking cognizance by itself is good ground for quashing as there are periods of limitation for taking cognizance even in matters of special law. Yet other contention is that since the seized ganza was not sent-up for proper laboratory test and in absence of any forensic laboratory report the authenticity of the seized item itself was doubtful. If the sample is not taken in the prescribed - 3 - manner then the whole thing becomes suspect as well as falls foul of the law in this regard because if the mandate of law is there it has to be followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision reported in the case of Ram Awtar Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2000(2) PLJR 445, emphasis is in paragraph 6 of the said decision. Learned A.P.P., however, has filed a counter affidavit and opposed the submissions made in support of the present application. He submits that the concerned officer was duly authorized and notified under the Act to carry out search and seizure and in this regard he relies on S.O. No.880 dated 5.9.1988 which has been brought on record as Annexure-A. He further submits that there is some kind of variance in the Hindi and the English text and since it is already settled law that in such a situation in the State of Bihar the Hindi text shall prevail and as per the Hindi text the Sub Inspector of Police is competent to search, seize and also file a F.I.R. the contention of the petitioner on this score is misplaced In so far as other submissions are concerned it is stated that since the punishment under the N.D.P.S. Act runs beyond five years, therefore, there was no question of any limitation setting in under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or even under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt there has been delay in taking cognizance but the charge sheet was filed well within time and delay by the Court may be for administrative reason which cannot exonerate the petitioner of his liability or culpability under the Act. The other submissions are matters which require to be considered at the time of trial - 4 - and have no serious repercussion on the merit of the order taking cognizance. Having heard the rival submissions and having perused the government notification with regard to the power of search and seizure conferred on the Sub Inspector of Police the basic foundational submissions made at the Bar with regard to jurisdiction of the officer in question is knocked out. Delay in taking cognizance in itself is no ground for quashing the proceeding and to that extent the same cannot be held to be illegal. The Court is of the opinion that no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. The application has no merit and it is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)