RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Surja Ram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc Petition No. 315 of 2016
Decided On : 13-09-2017
CRIMINAL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 8/15 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 42 - AUTHORIZED OFFICER - CHARGE OF STATION HOUSE OFFICER - SUB-INSPECTOR HOLDING CHARGE - NOT EMPOWERED TO CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him for offences under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The proceedings were initiated based on a charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand, who was holding the charge of Station House Officer (SHO) at the relevant time. The petitioner contended that Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand was not an authorized officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and, therefore, the proceedings conducted by him were illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand was not an authorized officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act as he was only holding the charge of SHO and was not posted as SHO at the relevant time. The court relied on several precedents, including Gopal & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3073/2014) and Roy. V.D. vs. State of Kerala [(2000) 8 SCC 590], which held that proceedings conducted by an unauthorized officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act are per se illegal and vitiate the trial.
Issues: Whether the proceedings conducted by Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand, who was holding the charge of SHO but was not posted as SHO at the relevant time, were legal and valid under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings conducted by Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand were illegal and vitiated the trial as he was not an authorized officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The court relied on the following principles: * Section 42 of the NDPS Act empowers only certain officers to conduct proceedings related to search, seizure, and arrest. * The notification issued by the State Government under Section 42 of the NDPS Act authorized only Inspectors of Police and Sub-Inspectors of Police posted as SHOs to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42. * Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand was only holding the charge of SHO and was not posted as SHO at the relevant time, therefore, he was not an authorized officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. * Proceedings conducted by an unauthorized officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act are per se illegal and vitiate the trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The court also quashed the charge sheet filed by Sub-Inspector Gyan Chand and set aside the criminal case registered against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet No.81/2013 dated 19.09.2013 arising out of FIR No.85/2013 lodged at Police Station Rathanjana, District Pratapgarh for the offence under Section 8/15 NDPS Act,1985.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Gopal & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal misc. Petition No. 3073/2014) decided on 1.09.2017.
3. This Court on 1.09.2017 has passed the following order in Gopal & ors. vs. State (Supra):-
"1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to the charge sheet No.75/2012 dated 05.03.2012 arising out of FIR No.552/2011 registered at Police Station Nimbahera, for the offence under Section 8/18, 25 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''the NDPS Act'').
2. The criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the charge sheet No.75/2012 dated 03.03.2012 arising out of FIR No.552/2011 at Police Station Nimbaheda for the offences under Sections 8/18, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The criminal proceedings are going on against the present petitioners before learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Chittorgarh.
3. The brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that on 10.09.2011, a police team headed by Sub-Inspector Kamal Chand of Police Station Nimbaheda along with other Head Constables and Constables conducted a Nakabandi in which a Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.MP 09 HB 3330 coming from Neemuch was stopped by Kamal Chand, Sub-Inspector. When the said car did not stop, it was forced to stop and on search in front of independent Motbir, it was revealed that there was a plastic bag containing three polythene bags having contraband weighing 14 kilograms along with two samples of 30 grams each separately. And the remaining articles and samples were sealed. All the four petitioners were arrested and given a notice under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. Six persons were taken to the police station where a case No.552/2011 for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered and the seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana. The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 8/18 & 8/25 of the NDPS Act. The criminal trial is going on after registration of criminal case No.22/2012."
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments that the proceedings were initiated by Kamal Chand, Sub-Inspector who was not posted as Station House Officer but was holding the post of Station House Officer in the absence of Station House Officer and thus, was not empowered to make search and seizure under the NDPS Act. The bail applications moved by the petitioners were allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.07.2017. The bail order is a speaking order and the sole reason for granting the bail was the proceedings being conducted by Kamal Chand, Sub-Inspector who was not empowered and ought to have brought the petitioner before the competent officers. The order dated 30.07.2012 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court reads as follows:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. The contention of the present petitioner is that they have been implicated falsely and the proceedings have been conducted in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The search was made by the Sub Inspector of Police, who was not posted as Station House Officer at the relevant time and hence the search and seizure are in contravention of the provisions. Hence, they should be released on bai
A.C. Sharma vs. Delhi Admn. 1973 1 SCC 726
Dr. M.C. Sulkunte vs. The State of Mysore AIR 1971 SC 508
Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala 2000 AIR SCW 4005 : (2000) 8 SCC 590
S.N. Bose vs. State of Bihar 1968 3 SCR 563
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Venugopal 1964 3 SCR 742
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604
State of M.P. vs. Mubarak Ali 1959 Supp 2 SCR 201 at pp 210 and 211 : AIR 1959 SC 707
State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh AIR 1994 SC 1872 : (1994) Cri LJ 3702
Sushil Kumar vs. State of M.P. 1999 Cr.L.J. 4516
Muni Lal vs. Delhi Administration 1971 2 SCC 48 : AIR 1971 SC 1525
AI
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.