NDPS search compliance upheld where Section 42 safeguards were substantially met and a new authority challenge was not entertained.

Where information about an NDPS offence emerged during investigation of another offence, strict Section 42 formalities were not mechanically required, and substantial compliance through written recording and forwarding to superior officers was treated as sufficient. The search and seizure were therefore upheld. A fresh challenge that the searching officer was not empowered could not be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court because it required a factual foundation and had not been argued before the trial court or High Court. The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was violated in conducting the search and seizure, and whether the information received during investigation of another offence required strict compliance with the recording and forwarding requirements; (ii) Whether the challenge that the officer conducting the search was not an empowered officer could be entertained at the appellate stage when it had not been raised before the courts below.

Issue (i): Whether Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was violated in conducting the search and seizure, and whether the information received during investigation of another offence required strict compliance with the recording and forwarding requirements.

Analysis: The search was made in the course of information received by the investigating officer while he was already engaged in investigation of another NDPS offence. In such a situation, the statutory requirements attached to prior information under Section 42 are not invariably attracted in the same manner as where the officer acts solely on prior information about the present offence. Even so, the officer in this case recorded the information in writing and forwarded it to superior officers by messenger, and the complaint itself reflected that course. The safeguards under Section 42 were therefore treated as having been sufficiently observed on the facts.

Conclusion: No violation of Section 42 was established, and the search and seizure were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge that the officer conducting the search was not an empowered officer could be entertained at the appellate stage when it had not been raised before the courts below.

Analysis: The objection regarding the authority of the officer was not taken before the trial court or the High Court. A new contention of this nature, involving a factual foundation, was not permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The objection was not entertained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where information comes to light during investigation of another offence, strict insistence on Section 42 formalities is not mechanically required if the officer substantially complies with the statutory safeguards; a new factual challenge not raised below cannot be introduced for the first time in appeal.

---