Compliance with the statutory formalities prescribed by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, such as reducing information to writing, sending a copy to the immediate official superior, and following the procedures for searching a person in a public place, is essential to ensure the protection of the rights of the accused and the reliability of the evidence.

Headnote:
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 8, 20, 25, 29, 41(2), 42(1), 42(2), 43, 50, 57 - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - STATEMENTS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITY - RELIABILITY - STATUTORY FORMALITIES - COMPLIANCE - NECESSITY - SECTION 42(1), 42(2), 43, 50, 57 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that accused No. 3 Mainuddin was habitually possessing, storing, and selling narcotic drugs at his residential house and a godown in the building known as ``Shams Manzil'' in Mali Lane at Miraj. Superintendent Yadav, invested with the necessary power under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, received information about the same and proceeded to Miraj with subordinates to conduct a raid. They found accused No. 3 standing in front of a locked room, which he admitted belonged to him. The door was opened, and accused No. 2 Mehboob was found inside with loose Ganja, wrapped paper packets containing Ganja, a weighing scale, and weights. The articles were seized and sealed under a panchanama. Accused No. 3 then led them to his residence, where a kettle containing loose Charas pieces, loose Ganja, and loose Madat (Opium) were found along with scales and weights. Accused No. 1 Narayansingh was found standing nearby with 33 small packets and 5 big paper packets, all containing Ganja. Currency was found on the persons of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The accused were arrested, and their statements were recorded, in which they admitted their guilt. Samples of the seized drugs were collected and sent for analysis, which confirmed the presence of Ganja, Charas, and Opium. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that accused No. 3 Mainuddin was physically present at the spot during the raid conducted by Superintendent Yadav. The court also found that there was no reliable evidence to prove that the room in Shams Manzil was taken on rent by accused No. 3 and was in his possession at the relevant time. However, the court found that the contraband articles were proved to have been found in the custody of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that they were working for accused No. 3 Mainuddin.
Issues: 1. Whether the statements made by the accused persons before Superintendent Yadav were admissible in evidence and could be relied upon for conviction. 2. Whether the statutory formalities prescribed by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were proved to have been performed by Superintendent Yadav.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the statements made by the accused persons before Superintendent Yadav were admissible in evidence but expressed doubt about their veracity and reliability. The court noted that the accused persons were hardened criminals and that the statements were made in custody, raising concerns about their voluntariness and truthfulness. 2. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the statutory formalities prescribed by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Specifically, the court noted that the information received by Superintendent Yadav's office was not reduced to writing as required by section 42(1) and that a copy was not sent to his immediate official superior as required by section 42(2). Additionally, the court found that the provisions of section 50, which require that a person searched in a public place be taken to a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, were not complied with in the case of accused No. 1 Narayansingh. The court also found that the requirement to make a full report of the arrest and seizure within 48 hours, as mandated by section 57, was not fulfilled.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the accused persons, set aside their convictions and sentences, and directed their release. The court held that the prosecution evidence was far from satisfactory and insufficient to warrant their convictions.

JUDGMENT - M.S. VAIDYA, J.:---These three criminal appeals arise out of convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli on 3rd September, 1987 in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1986. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1988 was accused No. 1, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1988 was accused No. 2 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1987 was accused No. 3 in all the said trial. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted of offences punishable under section 8 read with section 20 and under section 29g of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On each count they were sentenced separately sentenced separately to suffer R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to suffer further R.I. for two years. Accused No. 3 was convicted of offences punishable under section 8 read with section 20 and section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and he was also sentenced separately to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two years on each count. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed that the substantive sentences awarded to the aforesaid accused persons should run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case was as follows :

P.W. 4 Yadav was the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs at Kolhapur invested with the necessary power under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to detect and investigate into the offences under the Act and to prosecute the culprits appropriately. The district of Sangli was within his jurisdiction. On 13th February, 1986 he had received an information that accused No. 3 Mainuddin was habitually possessing, storing and selling narcotic drugs at his residential house and a godown in the building known as ``Shams Manzil'' in Mali Lane at Miraj. This information was received at or about 9.00 a.m. or 9.30 a.m at Kolhapur and immediately thereafter he proceeded with some office subordinates to Miraj in a Government vehicle. After reaching Miraj, he collected two panchas P.W. 1 Vyankatesh Kulkarni and one Shamrao Ganesh Shinkar and proceeded, at about 12 noon, to Mali Lane. When they reached near the ``Shams Manzil'' they found accused No. 3 standing in front of a closed door which was chained and locked Superintendent Yadav, therefore, asked accused No. 3 to whom the room belonged and when he had received the answer in the affirmative, he had disclosed his identity as the customs officer and had declared his intention to take a search of that room. When accused No. 3 was requested to open the lock of the door of the room and when he (accused No. 3) had expressed his inability to do so, Superintendent Yadav gave some jerks to the lock and managed to get the door opened. After offering accused No. 3 a personal search of the panchas, he entered the room to find therein accused No. 2 Mehboob sitting on the floor in the midst of loose Ganja, wrapped paper packets containing Ganja, a weighing scale, some weights and measures etc. The Ganja found there weighed about 22kgs. The articles were then seized and attached and were properly sealed under a panchnama (Exhibit 18). According to the prosecution , accused No. 3 Mainuddin was then questioned about the whereabouts of his residence. It is alleged that accused No. 3 led them to his residence. After adopting the aforesaid procedure, a search of the said house is alleged to have been taken. A kettle containing some loose Charas pieces, loose Ganja and loose Madat (Opium) were found in the kettle alongwith two scales and some weights. Those articles were seized under a separate panchanama (Exhibit 19). According to the prosecution, accused No. 2 disclosed tot he members of the raiding party that he was in the employment of accused No. 3 for making small packets of Ganja. The raiding party then came out of the house and found accused No. 1 Narayansingh standing on the road at a short dista

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis