2014 (3) TMI 1108 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of respondent - non-compliance of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act - destruction of opium (in the process of concealing opium in the well) - Held that - if the officer had reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence (which, in this case, would have resulted in destruction of evidence), as per proviso to Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, he could have conducted the search of the well after recording grounds of his belief - Section 42(2) requires that grounds of belief so recorded have to be communicated to the immediate superior official within seventy-two hours - since in this case, there is total non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the conviction of the respondent - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution's case revolved around information received by a Deputy Superintendent of Police regarding the respondent concealing opium in a well. The respondent was found with a bag containing opium, which he threw in the well upon being spotted by the police. The High Court acquitted the respondent based on non-compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, which empowers officers to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests without a warrant.

The Supreme Court referred to a previous case, Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, which clarified the scope and applicability of Section 42. The Court highlighted that while total non-compliance with the section is impermissible, delayed compliance with a valid explanation is acceptable. In the present case, the bag was recovered from the well after sunset and before sunrise, indicating an emergent situation where immediate action was necessary. The Court noted that the officer did not follow the required procedure of recording grounds of belief and communicating them to the superior within seventy-two hours, as mandated by Section 42(2). As a result, the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent based on non-compliance with Section 42 was upheld by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent due to the total non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements, even in emergent situations, and highlighted the significance of timely communication and compliance with legal provisions to ensure a fair trial and investigation in cases involving narcotic substances.