9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Chapter IV. The procedures under Section 41(1) and 42(2) ibid are separate and exclusive of one another. Compliance of one, would not infer the compliance of the other. In the circumstances contemplated under Section 42 of the NDPS Act the mandate of the procedure contemplated therein will have to be followed separately, in the manner interpreted by this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [2009 (7) TMI 1144 - SUPREME COURT] and the same will not be assumed, merely because the Station House Officer concerned had registered a first information report, which was also dispatched to the Superintendent of Police, in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. So, the submission of the respondent-State is not acceptable, that the registration of the first information report at the hands of the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahar, Panipat and its communication to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat would constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with at all. - Decided in favour of appellant - Criminal Appeal No (S). 216-217/2009 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pped in a polythene bag), 7 polythene packets of charas and some loose charas, and 23 packets of smack, from the above residential premises, on the left side of the entrance. On weighing the recovered material, it emerged that the accused-appellant Darshan Singh was in possession of 30 grams of opium, 40 grams of charas and 9 grams of smack. Having taken samples of 10 grams of opium, 10 grams of charas and 9 grams of smack, separate packets thereof were prepared. The rest of the charas and opium were confiscated, and the confiscated material was separately sealed. The recovered opium, charas and smack were made into three separate packets. Each of the three packets were individually sealed with the seal KS . The AETO also affixed his seal BS separately on each of the three sealed packets. It was also alleged that a cash amount of ₹ 56,141/-, which was recovered from the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, which he had allegedly collected by the sale of opium, charas and smack was also seized. For the same, a separate seizure memo was prepared. The factual position, depicted hereinabove was to demonstrate, that the Station House Officer of Police Station Shahar, Panipat, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under different provisions of the NDPS Act by the trial court were also affirmed. At the beginning of hearing the instant appeals, learned senior counsel for the appellant informed the Bench, that he would be raising various grounds in his challenge to the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, as also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Having heard the first submission, advanced at the hands of learned senior counsel, premised on Section 42 of the NDPS Act, we are satisfied, that it would not be necessary for us to deal with the remaining submissions, and accordingly, we did not hear learned senior counsel for the appellant, on the remaining submissions. Insofar as the contention of learned senior counsel for the appellant under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is concerned, he relied on the interpretation placed by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court on the above provisions in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein, this Court recorded its conclusions in Paragraph 35, which is being extracted hereunder: In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of 2001. (emphasis is ours) Based on conclusion (d) recorded hereinabove, it was the vehement contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the mandate contained in Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not at all complied with, by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Shahar, Panipat, who had received the secret information and conducted a raid on the premises of the accused-appellant Darshan Singh. Based on the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, requiring the officer concerned to record in writing the details in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant appeal, is whether the registration of the first information report, narrating the factual position as has already been described at the beginning of this order, as also, the communication of the first information report to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat would constitute an effective compliance of the provisions contained in Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the mandate contained in Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, requiring the recording in writing, the details pertaining to the receipt of secret information, as also, the communication of the same to the superior officer are separate and distinct from the procedure stipulated under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub-section 1 of Section 41 of the NDPS Act provides that a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class or any Magistrate of Second Class specially empowered by the State Government may issue a warrant for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV. Sub-section (2) of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
