Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 applied to the search and seizure from a vehicle intercepted on a public road in transit, and whether non-compliance with that provision justified setting aside the conviction.
Analysis: The search was conducted when the vehicle was moving in a public place and was intercepted during transit. In such a situation, the governing provision is Section 43, which covers seizure in a public place or in transit. Section 42 applies to entry into and search of a building, conveyance, or enclosed place, and its special requirements are not attracted where the search is made in transit in a public place. The presence of a gazetted officer in the raiding party further supported the legality of the search. The absence of a call for records relating to alleged information sent to superior officers did not alter the position.
Conclusion: Section 42 did not apply, the acquittal based on alleged non-compliance with that provision was unsustainable, and the conviction recorded by the trial court was restored in favour of the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: A search and seizure of a vehicle intercepted in a public place or in transit is governed by Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995, and not by Section 42; therefore, the procedural requirements of Section 42 cannot be invoked to invalidate such a search.