2018 (9) TMI 2147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. The matter lies within a short compass in view of the precise argument that has been made. This is with regard to the violation of Section 42 of the Act, the purport and effect of which has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana [(2009) 8 SCC 539]. Paragraph 35 of the Judgment is extracted below: "35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that 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 recei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otal 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 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 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that on receipt of this information, he had formed a team and had moved to Raxaul from Patna, which place they had reached by 2.00 a.m. in the morning of 3rd July, 2007. The vehicle in question had been apprehended and the contraband seized at about 6.00 a.m. of 3rd July, 2007. No explanation has been offered why the statement had not been recorded at any anterior point of time and the same was so done after the seizure was made. 7. Even if we were to assume that the anxiety of the Investigating Officer was to reach Raxaul which is on the international border and therefore, he did not have the time to record said information as per requirement of Section 42 of the Act, the matter does not rest there. There are other suspicious circumstan....