Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in NDPS Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 42(2) of NDPS Act. Secret Information Not Sent to Superior Officer Renders Search Illegal and Conviction Unsustainable.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 116
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Majjidkha s/o Hanifkha Khan, was convicted by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.10/2004 for an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The prosecution case was that on 17/8/2004, Police Inspector Ashok Jot (P.W.5) received secret information at 21.10 hours that the accused had stored contraband ganja in his house near Puja Colour Lab at Dadabhai Nouraji Ward, Ballarsha for sale. The information was reduced to writing in the station diary and given to Shri Walve, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur. Based on this, a raid was conducted at 22.40 hours and ganja was seized. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the mandatory requirement of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was not complied with, as the information was not sent to the immediate official superior. The court examined the evidence and found that P.W.5 admitted that he did not send the information to his superior officer. The court held that Section 42(2) is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the trial. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Headnote

A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 42(2) - Compliance with mandatory requirement - Secret information received by police officer must be reduced to writing and sent to immediate official superior forthwith - Failure to comply renders the search and seizure illegal and conviction unsustainable - Held that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with Section 42(2) as the information was not sent to the superior officer, vitiating the trial (Paras 5-7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is sustainable when the mandatory requirement of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act regarding sending of information to superior officer was not complied with.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.

Law Points

  • Non-compliance with Section 42(2) of NDPS Act
  • Secret information must be sent to superior officer immediately
  • Conviction based on illegal search and seizure cannot be sustained
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 181

Criminal Appeal No.431 of 2005

2018-10-12

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

Shri R. Daga, Advocate and Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for appellant; Smt. M.H. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent

Majjidkha s/o Hanifkha Khan

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction under NDPS Act

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal by challenging conviction and sentence

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for possession of ganja under Section 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act

Previous Decisions

Special Judge, Chandrapur convicted appellant in Special Case No.10/2004 on 9/8/2005

Issues

Whether the mandatory requirement of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act was complied with? Whether the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) is sustainable in absence of compliance?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that Section 42(2) was not complied with as information was not sent to superior officer Respondent argued that information was given to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, which is sufficient compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Section 42(2) of NDPS Act is mandatory and requires that any information received by a police officer regarding commission of an offence under the Act must be reduced to writing and sent forthwith to his immediate official superior. Non-compliance renders the search and seizure illegal and the conviction unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

It is mandatory on the part of the police officer to send the information to his immediate superior officer forthwith. In the present case, P.W.5 has admitted that he did not send the information to his superior officer. Non-compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial.

Procedural History

Appellant was convicted by Special Judge, Chandrapur on 9/8/2005 in Special Case No.10/2004. He appealed to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 12/10/2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 20(b)(ii), 22, 42(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Land Acquisition Notifications and Award for Highway Project Due to Incorrect Land Descriptions. Petitioners' lands were wrongly described in Section 3A and 3D notifications under the National Highways Act, 1956, leading to ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) Quashes Municipal Corporation's Order Inviting First Ranked Bidder for Second Negotiation in Solid Waste Tender for Violating RFP Clause 16.7. Tender Conditions Requiring Only One Negotiation with H-1 and Strict Adher...