2011 (8) TMI 1090 - SC - Customs

Whether total non-compliance with the provisions sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is impermissible but delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for the delay can, however, be countenanced?

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Association of independent witnesses with search and seizure.
3. Compliance with Sections 52, 55, and 57 of the Act.

Issue 1: Compliance with Section 42(2) of the Act:
The case revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, particularly focusing on compliance with Section 42(2). The appellant's counsel argued that failure to comply with this provision rendered the conviction unsustainable, citing the Constitution Bench's ruling in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 42(2), requiring immediate transmission of recorded information to the superior officer. The judgment highlighted the essence of the provision and the permissible scenarios for delayed compliance, emphasizing the importance of factual assessment in determining compliance. The Court found complete non-compliance in the present case, as the officers involved had not documented or transmitted the received information, leading to the conviction being vitiated.

Issue 2: Association of Independent Witnesses:
The appellant's counsel contended that insufficient effort was made to involve independent witnesses in the search and seizure process. However, the prosecution argued that the Ruqa had been sent for FIR registration, and conveying information via wireless to the DSP sufficed as compliance with Section 42(2). The Court did not delve deeply into this issue due to the primary focus on Section 42(2) compliance, ultimately leading to the appellant's acquittal based on this ground.

Issue 3: Compliance with Sections 52, 55, and 57 of the Act:
The appellant's counsel also raised concerns about non-compliance with Sections 52, 55, and 57 of the Act as additional reasons for challenging the conviction. However, the Court did not extensively address these issues due to the conclusive finding of non-compliance with Section 42(2) and its decisive impact on the case. The judgment prioritized the critical aspect of Section 42(2) adherence, leading to the reversal of the lower courts' decisions and the appellant's acquittal. The Court's decision was anchored in the mandatory nature of Section 42(2) and the lack of compliance observed in the case, ultimately determining the outcome of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment in this case centered on the pivotal issue of compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court's detailed analysis emphasized the mandatory nature of this provision, the permissible scenarios for delayed compliance, and the factual assessment required to ascertain adherence. The non-compliance with Section 42(2) by the investigating officers led to the appellant's acquittal, overshadowing other issues raised during the proceedings. The judgment serves as a significant precedent highlighting the critical importance of procedural compliance in narcotics-related cases and the legal consequences of such non-compliance.