TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1037
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rying on the business of selling charas, opium and smack, to small children of the locality, and was responsible for the said children falling in bad habits. The secret informant, allegedly disclosed to the Station House Officer of Police Station Shahar, Panipat, that if a raid was promptly conducted, the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, could be apprehended in possession of charas, opium and smack. As per the first information report, on the aforesaid secret information, the Station House Officer of Police Station proceeded to conduct a raid on the premises of the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, along with his companions, as already noticed hereinabove. On reaching the house of the accused-appellant Darshan Singh, he was given a notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') informing him that he wished to conduct a search of the premises and of his person. Darshan Singh was required to choose, whether he desired to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, or by a Magistrate. The accused-appellant Darshan Singh accepted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer, and accordingly, he was searched by Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, and in case of default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years, and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. Likewise, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and in case of default of the payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat directed that the above sentences would run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court, the accused-appellant Darshan Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No.344-SB of 2001 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The aforesaid appeal came to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior . (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has not been sent to the Police Station, but in the present case immediately after effecting the recovery, the ruqua was sent to the Police Station and on the basis of the same formal FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded at 5.15 p.m. and Ex.PB1 further proves that the copy of the said FIR was sent through special messenger, which was received by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat at 8.45 p.m. on the same day and the copy was also sent to the S.P., Panipat. Thus, it stands proved that about the arrest and seizure of the accused, the information was received by the superior officer, as such there is compliance of Section 57 of the Act." A perusal of Paragraph 26 extracted above reveals that immediately after conducting the raid, the concerned Station House Officer, Police Station Shahar, Panipat, registered a first information report, which was subsequently dispatched to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat on the same day, i.e. to the officer superior to the officer, who had conducted the raid (on receipt of secret information). According to the learned counsel for the respondent-State since first information report was sent to the superior officer, non-compliance of Section 42 h....