SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 929

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SWATANTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Sukhdev Singh
Versus
State of Haryana
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2118 OF 2008
Decided on : 13-12-2012

Headnote:Interpretation of Statute-Strict construction-No law can be interpreted so as to frustrate very basic rule of law-Provisions have to be strictly construed and cannot be given a retrospective effect unless legislative intent and expression is clear beyond ambiguity-Amendments to criminal law would not intend that there should be undue delay in disposal of criminal trials or there should be retrial just because law has changed-Such approach would be contrary to doctrine of finality as well as avoidance of delay in conclusion of criminal trial. (Para 15)

       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 18, 42 and 50-Search, seizure and arrest-Substantial compliance-Occurrence was of 4th Februaury, 1994-Trial of accused concluded by judgment of conviction dated 4th July, 1998-It will be unamended Section 42(2) of NDPS Act that would govern present case-Compliance of Section 42 is mandatory and there cannot be escape from its strict compliance-There is patent illegality in case of prosecution and such illegality is incurable-This is a case of total non-compliance and question of substantial compliance would not even arise for consideration-Impugned judgment set aside-Appellant acquitted-Appeal allowed. (Paras 18, 21 to 25)

       [(2001)6 SCC 692]; [(2000)2 SCC 513]-Referred.

       [(2004)3 SCC 609]; [(2009)6 SCC 490]; [(2009)14 SCC 201]; [(2009)13 SCC 211]; [(2009)8 SCC 539]-Relied.

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Appeal against High Court judgment upholding conviction under Section 15 NDPS Act for recovery of poppy husk (chura post) from accused's house on 4th February 1994 [1000521790001][1000521790027][1000521790002] - ASI Nand Lal (PW1) received secret information at 11:30 a.m. but did not reduce it to writing or inform superior officer as required under unamended Section 42(2) NDPS Act; reached accused's house at 2 p.m. despite only 6 km distance [1000521790006][1000521790007][1000521790008][1000521790020] - Accused offered search before Gazetted Officer under Section 50; DSP arrived after half hour, search conducted, samples taken and sealed [1000521790001] (!) - Trial Court convicted accused (10 years RI and fine); High Court upheld, finding substantial compliance with Section 42 via post-recovery ruqa and FIR [1000521790027][1000521790002] (!) [1000521790009] - Unamended Section 42(2) governs as offence occurred in 1994 and trial concluded in 1998; requires information taken in writing to be sent "forthwith" to superior [1000521790013][1000521790017] (!) - Compliance with Section 42 mandatory; total non-compliance (no writing or informing superior before raid despite sufficient time) vitiates prosecution case, no substantial compliance possible [1000521790018] (!) [1000521790019][1000521790021] - Supreme Court set aside convictions, acquitted accused, directed liberty if not required otherwise, and instructed DGP of States to ensure compliance with Section 42 [1000521790023][1000521790024][1000521790025][1000521790026]

What is required for compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act?


JUDGMENT :-

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th March, 2008 pronounced by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 802-SB of 1998. We may notice the case of the prosecution and the facts which have given rise to the filing of the present criminal appeal.

2. On 4th February, 1994, ASI Nand Lal along with HC Hoshiar Singh, HC Suraj Bhan and other police officials were present in village Jogewala, in connection with patrolling duty. ASI Nand Lal, who was examined as PW 1, received secret information against the accused that the accused was in the habit of selling chura post (poppy husk) in his house and if a raid is conducted upon the house of the accused, the accused can be caught red- handed with the contraband. One Nacchatter Singh is stated to have been associated with the raiding party which raided the house of the accused. However, this witness was declared hostile before the Court during his examination. On conducting a search, five bags were found lying concealed under a heap of chaff in the courtyard of the house of the accused. On suspicion of having some intoxicant in his possession, the Investigating Officer served notice upon the accused under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) giving him an offer to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Accused is stated to have responded to such notice vide Ext. PC/1 where he expressed his desire to be searched before a Gazetted Officer of the police. Upon having known the desired choice of the accused, it is stated that PW1 had sent an application, Ext. PD, to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dabwali, through Constable Amir Singh requesting him to reach the spot. Mr. Jagdish Nagar, DSP, reached the spot after about half an hour and upon his instruction the search of the bags was conducted. From each gunny bag, 100 grams of chura post was separated as sample. The samples as well as the remaining gunny bags weighed 39 kgs. and 900 grams each and were sealed with the seal bearing impressions JN and NL, and thereafter were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PE. The seal NL was handed over to HC Hoshiar Singh while seal JN was retained by the DSP himself. After completing this process, a ruqa Ex. PF was sent to the police station where the FIR being Ext. PF/1 was registered under Sections 15/16/61/85 of NDPS Act. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan Ext. PG. On return to the police station, the case property was handed over to the MHC with its seals intact. After receiving the test report Ext. PH from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban (Karnal) and after completing all other formalities, the challan was filed.

The challan in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”) was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses including PW1 Nand Lal, PW2 Jagdish Nagar, DSP and PW Nachhattar Singh. Affidavits of Nihan Singh, Head Constable and Tejas Singh, Constable (Ext. PA and PB respectively) were taken into evidence. The accused took the plea that he had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Harnand Singh, Ex-Member of the Block Samiti of the area and examined four witnesses in support of his case. The Trial Court vide its judgment of conviction dated 4th July, 1998 held the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act and after hearing the party on the quantum of sentence vide its order dated 6th July, 1998 awarded 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment to the accused with fine Rs. 1 lakh and in the event of default to undergo simple imprisonment for another two years. The legality and correctness of the judgment and order of sentence was challenged by the accused before the High Court.

3. The High Court vide its detailed judgment dated 27th March, 2008 declined to inter








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top