TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with detection of crime. In the meanwhile, ASI Varinder Singh received a secret information that accused Hardeep Singh used to sell poppy straw at his house situated in the eastern side of the village and on that day he was selling the poppy straw at his residence. On this information, ASI Varinder Singh sent `Ruqa' Ex.PA to the police station and conducted raid at the house of the accused after joining Joga Singh son of Asa Singh and Joga Singh son of Santokh Singh, but they refused to give any statement in the Court and agreed to accompany the raiding party. Accused Hardeep Singh found present at his house dragging two plastic bags into his house, who on seeing the police party left the bags there and tried to run away but he was apprehended. Offer regarding search was made to him. He opted for his search in the presence of a Magistrate. The public witnesses were freed at the spot. Thereafter, ASI Varinder Singh along with accused, two bags and witnesses came to the Tehsil Office, Nissing and produced them before Shri Lehna Singh, Naib Tehsildar. Then the search was made as per rules. 200 Grams of poppy straw was separated as sample from each of the bags and the remaining po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h son of Udham Singh. After going through the evidence on record, the learned Judge, Special Court, Karnal, vide its impugned judgment dated 1.4.2004 and order dated 3.4.2004 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence as mentioned above. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued on one point that the compliance of Section 42 of the Act is mandatory and in the present case no compliance under Section 42 of the Act has been made. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the compliance under Section 42 of the Act has been made and it has been duly discussed in the judgment by the learned Judge, Special Court. He argued that the PWs have consistently deposed regarding prosecution version and there is nothing on the record to show that the accused has been falsely implicated. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel and going through the record, I find that admittedly in the present case, the Investigating Officer has received a secret information against the accused on the basis of which `Ruqa' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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's case (supra) 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. 12. In the above view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State, 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. 13. In aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with at all, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. Thus viewed with conclusion (d) recorded in Paragraph 35 of the judgment rendered in Karnail Singh's case (supra), would fully apply to the facts and circumstances of the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 subsections (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 nonsending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a cop....