c06bf0d57fd4f8f29289f4d2fcb6378ae47c827f8f4f926c4c6ff41b8a13a02c

2009. On this count alone, it is not maintainable in view of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus: J t I u397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision:- (3) lf an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." Be that as it ffiay, I have perused the impugned order wherein trial court has dealt with every aspect of the case in detail and I find no infirmity in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the information received by him under RTI Act, Central lndustrial Security 2010:DHC:10327 Force is not an authority empowered to effect search and seizure of drugs under NDPS Act. Therefore also, the search and seizure the behest of CISF is vitiated. On perusal of the FlR, it transpires that as per the case of prosecution, petitioner at visitor gate of Terminal l-A of the Airport was insisting on going inside the Airport and when he was prevented from doing so, he started abusing. Senior officers were informed on Walkie- Talkie. As the conduct of the petitioner was suspicious, he was searched '{and on that search, six small polythene packets containing'ganja' were i recovered. Thus, prima facie, it is clear that petitioner was not searched on any information as suspicion of his having in possession of Narcotics substances and actually, it was his conduct which made the CISF officers suspicious, and led to the search and recovery. Therefore, in my considered view, this recovery cannot be termed as illegal. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the grder framing charge. Petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of t J L10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. (AJrT DECEMBER 16, 2O1O akb BHARIHOKE),UDGE