Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the original complainant, the Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs Preventive, Satara, challenging the judgment and order dated 2/5/1995 of the Sessions Judge, Satara, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution case was that on 7th October 1991, pursuant to information, officers of the Central Excise conducted a search of the residential premises of the accused. The raiding party, accompanied by two panchas, recovered two polythene bags containing 167 and 210 packets of ganja, and two tins containing flowers and leaves of ganja, totaling 8.25 kgs valued at Rs.4000/-. Samples were taken and sent for chemical analysis, which confirmed the substance as ganja. The accused was charged under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Sections 41(2) and 42 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the search warrant under Section 41(2) was validly issued and that the requirements of Section 42 regarding information in writing and recording of grounds were complied with. The court held that the provisions of Sections 41(2) and 42 are mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the search and seizure. Consequently, the acquittal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(i) - Possession of Ganja - Acquittal - Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 41(2) and 42 - The prosecution failed to prove that the search warrant under Section 41(2) was validly issued and that the requirements of Section 42 regarding information in writing and recording of grounds were complied with. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the mandatory provisions were not followed, rendering the recovery illegal. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Search and Seizure - NDPS Act - Section 41(2) and Section 42 - Mandatory Compliance - The court held that the provisions of Sections 41(2) and 42 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Failure to do so vitiates the search and seizure, and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act was justified due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 41(2) and 42 of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara, dated 2/5/1995, is confirmed.
Law Points
- Mandatory compliance with search and seizure provisions under NDPS Act
- Section 41(2) and Section 42
- Non-compliance vitiates trial
- Burden of proof on prosecution to show compliance
- Acquittal upheld
