2009 (1) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by the police.
2. Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Sec. 42 and Sec. 50.
3. Authorization of the officer conducting the search.

Summary:

1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by the police:
The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, and the conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. The appellant was found guilty of possessing and selling contraband articles, specifically 'charas', at his residence. The raid was conducted based on information received during the investigation of another offence. The raiding party, led by PSI KD Pandya, followed the necessary legal procedures, including informing higher officers and recording the information in writing.

2. Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Sec. 42 and Sec. 50:
The appellant argued non-compliance with Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the empowered officer must take down prior information in writing and send a copy to his immediate official superior. The Supreme Court noted that PSI Pandya, although investigating another offence, took down the information in writing and transmitted it to higher officers, thus complying with Sec. 42. The Court referenced the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Sec. 42 and Sec. 50, and concluded that the procedural requirements were met in this case.

3. Authorization of the officer conducting the search:
The appellant contended that the officer conducting the search was not authorized or empowered. The Supreme Court observed that this issue was not raised before the trial court or the High Court and therefore could not be entertained at this stage. The Court reiterated that the search was conducted by an empowered officer in compliance with the NDPS Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00, with a default stipulation of further simple imprisonment, were upheld.