Back
2015 Supreme(Tri) 501
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Sujit Dhar - Accused-Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
A. B. No. 39 of 2015
Decided On : 9.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. Majumder, Adv., Ms. C. Bhowmik, Adv.
Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for substantial compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases of search and seizure operations based on prior secret information. The judgment also clarifies the specific compliance requirements under Section 42 and the role of the Magistrate in certifying the inventory under Section 52A.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail Petition - Section 21(c) - Section 42, Section 52A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail petition in relation to a case registered under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged the illegal storage of codeine based cough syrup in the petitioner's house, leading to a raid and seizure of contraband substances. The petitioner's bail application was rejected by the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as the raid was conducted based on prior secret information, and the information was recorded in the General Diary Entry. The Court also held that Section 52A, which pertains to the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, was not required to be complied with in this case.
Issues: The issues raised included the alleged violation of Section 42 and Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of substantial compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases of prior secret information leading to search and seizure operations. It clarified the requirements for compliance with Section 42 and the role of the Magistrate in certifying the inventory under Section 52A.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected by the Court, which found no merit in the petitioner's claim.
This bail petition by the petitioner has been filed in respect of West Agartala P.S Case No.47 of 2015 (re-numbered as Special NDPS Case No. 13/2015) registered against the petitioner under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that the Officer-in-Charge of the West Agartala police station received secret information in the morning of 24.04.2015 that large amount of codeine based cough syrup was illegally stored in the house of the petitioner. The matter was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police concerned. Thereafter the informant along with other staff went to Lankamura, identified the house of the petitioner and on conducting raid recovered 975 bottles of phynsidol, 150 bottles reco-dex and 160 bottles of Es-kup from the hut of the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and the bail petition filed before the trial Court was rejected. Hence the present bail application.
3. Sri P.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two contentions before this Court. The first contention is that the provision of Section 42 of the Act have been violated and the second contention that the provision of Section 52A have been violated. It is the contention of Sri Biswas that Section 42 of the Act has been violated because the Investigating Officer has not recorded the reasons of his belief in writing. With regard to Section 52A the contention is that the samples have been drawn by the police officer at the spot and this is violative of the provision of Section 52A of the Act.
4. Section 42 of the Act reads as follows:
“42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.---
(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,-
(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:
Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances, grante
