TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the 'NDPS Act'). 2. The prosecution case was that on 13.4.1997, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahinder Pal Singh Punia recorded information received by him through an informer that one Chhagan Lal Jat, i.e., the respondent herein has concealed some opium in his well which he was to sell in the night. On receipt of the information, he noted it down and forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. Thereafter, independ ent panchas were called and the concerned area was cordoned off. It is further the case of the prosecution that at about 5.00 O'clock in the morning, one person was spotted. He was chased and while running the said person threw one b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,-- (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 42 of the NDPS Act in the matter of conducting search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation, certain appeals were placed before the Constitution Bench to resolve the issue. In Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana [(2009) 8 SCC 539], after considering the relevant judgments on the point, the Constitution Bench resolved the said issue and recorded its conclusions which read as under : "35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows : (a) The officer on receiving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of 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 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 ....