Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Daulatram @Dolly Trilok Singh, Shahmohammed Salatmatmiya Shah, and Bampada @Bamdeo @Ity Sanatan Adak, were convicted by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for possession of charas and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine. They appealed against the conviction. The prosecution case was that on 8th November 2006, PW6 PSI Manisha Anant Shirke received information that three persons would be selling charas near Hotel Holiday Inn, Juhu. A raid was conducted and charas was recovered from the appellants. The appellants were charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted them. On appeal, the High Court examined the compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, which requires that information received by an officer be transmitted to the immediate official superior. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that such information was transmitted. PW6 stated that she sent a copy of the information through WPC Pataskar, but Pataskar was not examined, and no other evidence was led to prove transmission. The court held that non-compliance with Section 42(2) vitiates the search and seizure, and the appellants are entitled to acquittal. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Search and Seizure - Section 42(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Mandatory Requirement - The prosecution failed to prove that the information received by PW6 was transmitted to the immediate official superior as required under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. The court held that non-compliance with this mandatory provision vitiates the search and seizure, and the accused are entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-12) B) Narcotic Drugs - Charas - Possession - Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) of NDPS Act - Conviction Set Aside - The appellants were convicted for possession of charas but acquitted on appeal due to procedural irregularities in the search and seizure process. The court found that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) were not complied with, rendering the conviction unsustainable. (Paras 1-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 vitiates the search and seizure and entitles the accused to acquittal.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Non-compliance with Section 42(2) of NDPS Act vitiates search and seizure
- Mandatory requirement to transmit information to immediate official superior
- Acquittal on benefit of doubt due to procedural lapse
