Y.K.SABHARWAL, B.N.AGARWAL
M. Prabhulal – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence – Respondent
What is the applicability of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act when search, seizure etc. is conducted by Gazetted Officer under Section 41(2) and (3) of NDPS Act?
Key Points: - The appellants were convicted under Sections 8(c), 29 r/w 18 and 21 of NDPS Act for offenses involving 66.1 kg heroin seized from a truck and car (!) (!) [1000082690001]. - Confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act by Revenue Intelligence officers were admissible, voluntary, and formed basis of conviction, with no complaints of torture before Magistrate and no delay [1000082690002][1000082690003][1000082690004]. - Search and seizure at Customs Office (20 km from apprehension site) without independent witnesses was valid as accused were present, no tampering alleged, and voluntary confessions corroborated recovery [1000082690005][1000082690006]. - Section 42(2) NDPS Act does not apply when a Gazetted Officer empowered under Section 41(2) himself conducts arrest, search, and seizure (!) [1000082690007][1000082690009][1000082690013]. - Section 41(2) empowers Gazetted Officers of specified departments to act directly or authorize subordinates, vesting them with Section 42 powers without Section 42(2) reporting requirement (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000082690013]. - Distinction: Section 42(1) applies to non-Gazetted empowered officers requiring immediate superior reporting under 42(2), unlike trusted Gazetted Officers under 41(2) [1000082690013]. - High Court correctly held Section 41 applicable, not Section 42, rendering prior decisions on Section 42(2) inapplicable [1000082690009][1000082690013]. - Appeals dismissed, upholding conviction and sentence as no illegality in procedure or evidence [1000082690014][1000082690015] (!) .
JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-The Special Judge, Salem under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act ), tried 11 accused for various offences. Six were convicted. Two of the convicted accused succeeded in the criminal appeal and the remaining four whose conviction and sentence has been maintained by the High Court by the impugned judgment are appellants before us. They are original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. The trial judge convicted accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for offences under Section 8(c), 29 read with Section 18 and Section 8(1), 29 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act and awarded on each appellant the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and also fine amount of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment fine for each offence, they were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The substantive sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. Accused No.6 was also found guilty for offence under Sections 8(c), 29 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2.
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.