In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Satpalsingh @ Raja s/o. Jeetsingh Pujari & Another
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2012
Decided On : 08-10-2013
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 42(2) - Requirement under. - A Gazetted Police Officer who headed raiding party, not required to comply with requirement of Section 42(2) of Act to send information in writing to superior officer. - The Court can give finding that the compliance of provision of Section 42 was not practicable and on that ground, the Court may refuse to give acquittal. It can be said that when there is situation like the recovery of contraband by chance, when the recovery is made immediately after the receipt of information and there was possibility of giving opportunity to the accused to escape due to following of the procedure laid down in Section 42 (2) of NDPS Act, the Court can give finding that the compliance of provision of Section 42 (2) was not necessary. There is the evidence in the present case to corroborate the version of P.S.I. Bharti (PW 1) who made seizure. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court holds that there was no need to comply the provision of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act.
Key Points: - (!) The court held that when a Gazetted Officer heads the raiding party, strict compliance with section 42 may be unnecessary; non-compliance can be tolerated if proven not practicable, citing Bharti and related Apex Court discussions. [4000446530036] - (!) Conviction for possession under NDPS Act section 15 was upheld for commercial quantity of contraband; however, convictions under sections 22 and 25 and under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were set aside due to deficiencies in sample handling and pharmaceutical substance proceedings. [4000446530032] - (!) The trial court’s handling of samples, seals, and forensics (52-A inventory, sending samples to C.A. office) was scrutinized; some deficiencies were noted but did not completely undermine the section 15 conviction, while other related convictions were reversed. [4000446530016][4000446530021][4000446530039] - (!) The judgment affirms that where premises were occupied by the accused and large quantities of contraband were found, there is sufficient evidence of conscious possession for section 20/15 NDPS, subject to evaluative forensic and procedural compliance. [4000446530040] - (!) The appellate court partially allowed the appeal: set aside convictions under sections 22, 25, and 18(C) Drugs and Cosmetics Act; upheld conviction under section 15 NDPS Act with minimum sentence remaining. [4000446530031]
T.V. Nalawade, J.
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case (NDPS) No. 3/2011, which was pending in the Court of Extra Jt. Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. Both the appellants are convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 15, 22, 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for short). They are also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 18 (C) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Both the sides are heard.
2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows:-
On 19.3.2011 Smt. Nirmala Devi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Gazetted Officer, received information that at Amar Complex, Gurudwara Chowk, Nanded, Satpalsingh (accused No. 1) and his servant Shankar (accused No. 2) were in illegal possession of poppy straw powder and they were selling it. Smt. Nirmala Devi was heading a special squad at the relevant time. She collected the staff and with the staff, she went to Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded as the aforesaid police station is situated within the local jurisdiction of this police station.
3. In the station diary of the police station, Smt. Nirmala Devi made entry about the information received by her at about 13.15 hours. Information was given to District Superintendent of Police about the information received by Smt. Nirmala Devi and his permission was obtained for taking action. Two panch witnesses were collected. One photographer was collected for taking photographs of the incident. One Dr. Paratwad, Resident Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, who was Gazetted Officer, was requested to accompany the raiding party and witness the incident. The entries of all these incidents were taken in the station diary of the aforesaid police station. At about 14.15 hours Smt. Nirmala Devi left the police station in Government vehicle with aforesaid persons for effecting raid. The entry about leaving police station was also made in the station diary.
4. The Government vehicles were stopped at some distance from Amar Complex and from there, aforesaid persons walked up to Amar Complex Building. There were three shops in the building on the western side. The raiding party found that the third shop from this row was in open condition and two persons (accused Nos. 1 and 2) were present in the shop. Smt. Nirmala Devi gave her introduction and introduction of aforesaid persons to both the accused. She informed to the accused persons that she wanted to take search of their shop. She and other members of raiding party offered their personal search to accused Nos. 1 and 2, to which both the accused declined. Written consent of both the accused was obtained in that regard.
5. In the presence of Resident Medical Officer and two panch witnesses, Smt. Nirmala Devi took search of aforesaid shop. They recovered dry and wet poppy straw. The total weight of poppy straw recovered from the shop was around 107 K.G. The containers and empty bags were also taken over.
6. Three samples of wet poppy straw of 180 M.L. each were separated. Similarly two samples of dry poppy straw of 500 gms. each were separated. These samples were closed and sealed and labels bearing the signatures of panchas were pasted on these sample packets. The remaining contraband was also closed and sealed in other packets and it was taken over. Nine strips of twenty tablets each of Nitrosun were found and the Officers suspected that it was also narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The approximate value of the substance seized was around 1.12 lakhs. The cash amount of Rs. 3850/- was also found in the shop. Panchanama of this incident was prepared and photographs of the incident were taken. The panchanama was signed by the panch witnesses, the Police Officer and the Gazetted Officer. A copy of panchanama was given to each of the accused and their signatures were obtained on the panchanama in token
Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Dilip and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Directorate of Revenue and Anr. Vs. Mohammed Nisar Holia
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujrat
Jitendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Koluttumolal Razak Vs. State of Kerala
M. Prabhulal Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenlie Intelligence
Mohd. Aslam Khan Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau
Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala
State of Haryana Vs. Jamail Singh and Others
State of Punjab Vs. Makhan Chand
State of Punjab Vs. Malkiat Singh. 2009 (12) SCC 303
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.