Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.36 seconds)Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Shah Alam & Anr on 11 June, 2009
In Union of India v. Shah Alam[2009 (16) SCC
644], heroin was first recovered from the bags carried by
the respondents therein. Thereafter, their personal search
was taken but nothing was recovered from their person. It
was urged that since personal search did not lead to any
recovery, there was no need to comply with the provisions
of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Following Dilip, it was held
that since the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act
were not complied with, the High Court was right in
acquitting the respondents on that ground."
Dilip & Anr vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2006
In Dilip & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh[2007
(1) SCC 450], on the basis of information, search of the
person of the accused was conducted. Nothing was found
on their person. But on search of the scooter they were
riding, opium contained in plastic bag was recovered. This
Court held that provisions of HYPERLINK
"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/961083/"Section 50
might not have been required to be complied with so far as
the search of the scooter is concerned, but keeping in view
the fact that the person of the accused was also searched,
it was obligatory on the part of the officers to comply with
the said provisions, which was not done. This Court
confirmed the acquittal of the accused.
Karnail Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 July, 2009
18. The aforesaid decision has set at rest the legal position and it is no longer res
integra that though non-compliance of provisos of sub-section(1) and (2) of
Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory reasons
would be acceptable compliance of Section 42 of the Act. In the present case,
non-compliance is alleged not on the ground of any unexceptional delay but
the ground that the copy of the Rojnamchasanha which contained the
information received was not forwarded but instead a communication
separately incorporating the information received was communicated vide
communication dated 20.06.2010 (Exhibit P-22). The stress is on the
submission that the information as it was recorded should have been sent with
a copy of the information as recorded. After having giver our anxious
consideration to the scope, object and purpose of Section 42(2) of the Act, as
considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh (supra), and
-18-
after having gone through the contents of the information contained in
communication dated 20.06.2010 (Ex. P-22), we are of the opinion that the
provisions of legal requirement of sending information has been duly complied
with. The object of the provision is to ensure that the information which is taken
down by the officer in writing under sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act or
the grounds for his belief under the provision to sub-section (1) of Section 42
of the Act must be communicated to the higher officer within a stipulated time.
This is intended to obliterate false implication. The essence of the requirement
is that the information received and taken down in writing must be
communicated. In the case in hand, the other part, i.e. the belief as required
under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act is not the issue.
What has to be seen is whether the information received and taken down in
writing was actually communicated to the higher authority or not. For this
purpose, we may compare the information taken down in writing in the
Rojnamchasanha of the police station on 20.06.2010. With the relevant part of
the information sent to the higher officer recorded as below:
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State By Inspector Of Police(Tamil ... vs Rajangam on 30 April, 2009
9. Later on, this very witness assumed the role of the Investigating Officer which
is clearly manifest from what he has deposed in his evidence from para 10
onwards. This witness sent information to the Magistrate, effected arrest of the
accused persons, prepared arrest memo, examined the accused making
necessary entries in the case diary, recorded case diary statement under
Section 161 CrPC of all the witnesses, prepared spot map, sent seized articles
to the Malkhana and samples drawn to the FSL and after completion of usual
investigation he proceeded to file charge sheet also. The detailed examination
and cross-examination of this witness leaves no manner of doubt that having
lodged the FIR, he then assumed the role of the Investigating Officer of the
present case and the entire investigation was done by PW-3 only. There is no
material on record nor it is the case of the prosecution that the investigation
was conducted by an officer of the same police station other than the one who
submitted the information. If this overwhelming evidence is taken into
consideration, it is clear that the police officer who submitted the information
leading to recording of a formal FIR in the police station himself became the
Investigating Officer and carried out the entire investigation. If that be so, we
-9-
have no hesitation to hold that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Rajangam (supra), the investigation and the consequential trial and
conviction, both are vitiated. In the decision of the Supreme Court referred to
above, it was found that the Inspector of Police, having received information
regarding transportation of the contraband articles, proceeded in the same
manner as was done by PW-3 in the present case. He was one of those
officers who had gone to the spot to apprehend the accused and carry out
search and seizure of contraband which was found in a bag alleged to be in
possession of the accused. He was the officer who brought the accused to the
police station and then conducted investigation. He was the officer who
questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements. He was also the
officer who had sent the report to the superior officer under Section 57 of the
Act. In this factual background, challenge to the legality and validity of the trial
and conviction was examined by the Supreme Court as below: