Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 2162
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. Santosh Hegde, K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Karnail Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4460 of 2002
Decided On : 25-10-2002
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.P.S. Doel, Mr. Dinesh Verma, Ms. Suresh Kumari, Mr. A.P. Mohanty, Advocates.
Conflicting opinions on the mandatory nature of Section 42 of the NDPS Act
Headnote:
Section 42 - NDPS Act - The court discussed the conflicting opinions on the mandatory nature of Section 42 of the NDPS Act of 1985 and issued notice in the Special Leave Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner relied on the judgment in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat to argue that Section 42 of the NDPS Act is mandatory. The High Court relied on the subsequent judgment in Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, which held that non-compliance with Section 42 does not vitiate the proceedings unless the accused establishes prejudice.
Finding of the Court:
The court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition due to conflicting opinions on the mandatory nature of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Issues: Conflicting opinions on the mandatory nature of Section 42 of the NDPS Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to issue notice in the Special Leave Petition was influenced by the conflicting opinions on the mandatory nature of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition to further consider the conflicting opinions on the mandatory nature of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Legal Category Hierarchy
JUDGMENT :
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2000 (2) SCC 513) to contend that Section 42 of the NDPS Act of 1985 is mandatory. The High Court has relied on subsequent judgment of this Court in case of Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, (2001 (6) SCC 692) wherein it is held that unless the accused establishes prejudice caused to him mere non-compliance of Section 42 of the said Act does not vitiate the proceedings. In view of these to conflicting opinion we issue notice in this SLP.
