Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th May 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.48 of 1998, whereby the respondent-accused, Shivaji Shankar Bhintade, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 8(b) read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case arose from an incident on 25th February 1997, when Shri Shivaji Gangaram Rasal (P.W.3), an informant attached to the State Excise Office, Wai, received information that some agriculturists had cultivated opium-poppy plants in their fields at village Bavdhan. He informed the Superintendent, State Excise, Satara, and then along with panch witnesses and other staff members, raided the field of the respondent-accused bearing Gat No.3432. They found opium-poppy plants in his field, out of which two plants were uprooted and treated as sample plants, duly sealed on the spot, and the remaining plants were also seized. A detailed seizure panchnama was prepared. Later, P.W.3 lodged a report, based on which C.R.No.9/1997 was registered under Section 8(b) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act against the accused. After investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed false implication. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to the present appeal by the State. The main legal issue was whether the acquittal was proper, particularly in light of alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The appellant-State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused. The respondent-accused contended that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which requires recording of information in writing before proceeding to search. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the informant did not record the information in writing before conducting the raid, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The court held that such non-compliance vitiates the search and seizure, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8(b) read with Section 18 - Cultivation of opium poppy - Acquittal - The State appealed against acquittal of accused for cultivating opium poppy plants. The court examined compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding recording of information and search. Held that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions, and the acquittal was justified. (Paras 1-11) B) Criminal Procedure - Search and Seizure - Section 42 of NDPS Act - Recording of information - The informant received information about cultivation but did not record it in writing before proceeding to search. The court held that such non-compliance vitiates the search and seizure, and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 8(b) read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act was proper in light of alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.48 of 1998 is upheld.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act
- Mandatory recording of information
- Search and seizure procedure
- Acquittal upheld
