2001 (8) TMI 736 - SC - Customs

Order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 set aside by High Court - Held that - Appeal dismissed. No infirmity in the impugned order of the High Cour as all the necessary information to be submitted in a report was sent. This constitutes substantial compliance and mere absence of any such report cannot be said it has prejudiced the accused. This section is not mandatory in nature. When substantial compliance has been made, as in the present case it would not vitiate the prosecution case. In the present case, we find PW5 has sent all the relevant material to his superior officer immediately. Thus we do not find any violation of Section 57 of the Act.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against High Court judgment setting aside acquittal under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act based on possession of narcotic drugs and syringes near Blue Tronics Junction. Trial court acquitted him due to discrepancies in prosecution evidence.

2. Prosecution Evidence: The High Court found discrepancies as trivial, upholding the prosecution's version. Witness testimonies of PW1, PW3, and PW5 corroborated the seizure of contraband and appellant's arrest. High Court convicted the appellant based on positive evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Violation of Mandatory Provisions: The appellant argued violation of Sections 42, 50, and 57 of the Act, seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence.

4. Section 42 Compliance: The appellant claimed non-compliance as PW5 did not record information before arrest. The Court held that immediate action was necessary to prevent escape, justifying the lack of written record as reasonable under the circumstances.

5. Section 50 Compliance: The appellant alleged failure to inform him in writing of his search rights. However, oral communication of this right, supported by evidence, was deemed valid under Section 50 by the Constitution Bench.

6. Section 57 Compliance: The appellant contended non-reporting within 48 hours of arrest or seizure as per Section 57. The Court found substantial compliance as PW5 sent all relevant documents immediately to his superior, satisfying the requirement.

7. Precedent: Citing State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, the Court clarified that Sections 52 and 57 are not mandatory, emphasizing substantial compliance in the present case.

8. Conclusion: Finding no infirmity in the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked merit. The judgment upheld the conviction under Section 21 of the NDPS Act based on the prosecution's established evidence and compliance with relevant legal provisions.