9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Comprehensive Analysis: 1. Compliance with Section 42(2) of the Act: The accused challenged the judgment convicting him under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, primarily contending that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) had not been complied with. The prosecution's case involved a raid where charas was recovered from the accused's Khokha. The defense argued that the accused, a renunciate, could not have possessed the charas, suggesting police involvement without justification. The prosecution, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, asserted compliance with all legal requirements. The Court delved into the legal framework, emphasizing the mandatory nature of certain provisions like Sections 41(2), 42(2), 50(1), 52(1), and 57 of the Act. 2. Legal Precedents and Interpretation: The Court referenced previous decisions to underscore the importance of complying with the Act's provisions, particularly Section 42(2). It cited State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumary and State v. Vidya Devi to establish the mandatory nature of certain sections unless failure of justice is proven. The Apex Court's ruling in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh reinforced the significance of documenting advance information and sending it to the immediate superior officer. Non-compliance with these provisions was deemed detrimental to the prosecution's case. 3. Examination of Compliance: The Court meticulously examined the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses regarding the events leading to the raid and subsequent actions. Discrepancies in the statements of Inspector Saju Ram Rana and Constable Mast Ram raised doubts about the fulfillment of Section 42(2) requirements. It was noted that while certain reports were sent, the crucial step of sending a copy of the information to the immediate superior officer was overlooked. The Court highlighted the distinction between a First Information Report and the information required under Section 42(2), emphasizing the latter's mandatory nature. 4. Conclusion and Judgment: Based on the established non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the Act, the Court ruled that the trial stood vitiated. Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the charge, and the appeal was allowed. The Court also revoked the accused's bail bond and surety bond, in line with the acquittal. The judgment focused on the legal intricacies surrounding compliance with statutory provisions, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused based on procedural lapses.
|
