Nct of Delhi Vs.
Malvinder Singh  Insc 721 (21 June 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P.P. NAOLEKAR
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of
Delhi High Court directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to
as the 'Accused'). Learned Session Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 698 of
1991 found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 17 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 (in short the 'Act') and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 20th February, 1990 Pran Nath, Sub Inspector of Special staff, north
District, was on patrolling duty along with Ramesh Kumar, Assistant
Sub-Inspector, Puran Chand, Head Constable; Raghbir Singh, Head Constable; Ved
Parkash Head Constable and other constables. At about 7 a.m., near the petrol pump at Mall Road situated within the bounds of Police Station, Timarpur, a
police Informer gave information to Pran Nath, Sub Inspector of the accused's
possession of opium.
Consequently, a raiding party was organized. Jeet Lal, public witness was
also joined in the raiding party besides the above mentioned cops. Thereafter,
the members of the raiding party lay waiting at the Ring Road crossing,
Timarpur. At about 7.45 a.m. scooter No. DIA 819 was spotted by the members of
the raiding party. It was observed that Malvinder Singh (accused) was plying
the said scooter and accused Om Parkash @ Lalla @ Gupta was sitting on its
pillion seat. At the instance of the informer the scooter was stopped. Pran
Nath, Sub Inspector acquainted the accused with the contents of the information
and with the fact that if the accused so desired, they could be produced before
an Officer (Gazetted) for conducting their search. The accused reeled off their
refusal to the said proposal and made clean breast of the charge that they were
having opium. However, Pran Nath sent information to Ramesh Chand Saini, the
then S.H.O. of Police Station Timarpur and H.M. Meena, A.C.P. and called them
to the spot.
After some time ACP Shri Meena and SHO Shri Saini arrived at the spot one
after the other. Both of verified the facts on the spot. Thereafter, they
directed the Investigating Officer to conduct the search. The search of Om
Parkash accused resulted in recovery of opium weighing 800 gms. which had been
wrapped in a newspaper and kept in between chest, shirt and sweater of Om Parkash.
Malvinder accused produced the key of the scooter. He brought out the same from
the lock of the head of the scooter. Opium weighing 700 gms., wrapped in green
polythene paper was recovered from dicky of the above said scooter. Two samples
weighing 50 grams each were separated from the above said opium weighing 800
grams and 700 grams. Both the samples and the remaining two parcels of the
opium were separately packed and sealed with the seals bearing the initials of
RKV belonging to Ramesh Kumar Vohra ASI and RCS belonging to the SHO. CFSL form
was filled in and both the seals were affixed thereon. The seal of RKV was
entrusted with Jeet Lal, public witness, but the SHO retained his seal with
him. SHO carried the case property and CFSL form to the police station and
deposited the same with the Moharar Malkhana. The case property recovered from
the possession of Om Prakash was seized vide recovery memo Ex.
PW 1/B, Malvinder's case property, scooter, keys were seized vide recovery
memo Ex. PW1/A. Kuldip Singh constable took the ruqqa Ex. PW 6/A to the police
station and Kedar Nath Singh, Head Constable registered the instant case.
Report of CFSL Ex. 7/B depicted the percentage of Morphine in the samples as
5.5 and 4.8. approximately. The Public Analyst came to the conclusion that the
samples had given positive tests for opium. The accused were thus arrested and
charged under Section 17 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Accused pleaded innocence.
Appellant also pleaded that on account of animosity with the Head Constable
Chandrika Parshad, he was falsely implicated. The trial court found the
evidence to be cogent and credible and convicted both the accused persons i.e.
Om Prakash and the present respondent.
Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court and questioned the
conviction primarily on the ground that there was non compliance of the
requirements of Section 42 of the Act. The High Court accepted the plea that
the secret information received was not reduced into writing and was also not
sent to the higher officer. In the absence of any evidence in this effect it
was held that there was non compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section
42 of the Act. Accordingly the conviction was set aside and acquittal was
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the High Court had erroneously concluded that this was a case to which Section
42 has application.
Undisputedly, the police officer while on patrol duty, received secret
information and had organized the raid party. The ACP was also informed and he
was a party of the raid party and, therefore, Section 42 has no application. In
any case there was no requirement to send any information which in fact had
been done. It was for the accused to call for the record relating to the
information given to the superior officer. In any event, this is a case which
is not only covered by Section 43 IPC but also covered by Section 41 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the accused supported the order of the High Court.
6. At this juncture it would be relevant to take note of what has been
stated by this Court in T. Thomson v. State of Kerala and Another [2002 (9) SCC
618]. At para 5 it was observed as follows:
"5. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the record alleged to
have been prepared by PW 1 on getting information regarding the movement of the
appellants has not been produced in court. But he conceded that no motion was
made on behalf of the appellants to call for the said record. There is no
statutory requirement that such a record should be produced in the court as a
matter of course. We are, therefore, not disposed to upset the finding on that
7. It appears that no effort was made by the accused to call for the records
of information, if any, sent. The further question is whether in a case of this
nature while the police officer on patrol duty stops the vehicle in transit in
a public place and conducts search and seizure, Section 42 has no application.
8. In State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh and Others [2004(5) SCC 188], it was
held as follows:
"The next question is whether Section 42 of the NDPS Act applies to the
facts of this case. In our view Section 42 of the NDPS Act has no application
to the facts of this case. Section 42 authorises an officer of the departments
enumerated therein, who are duly empowered in this behalf, to enter into and
search any such building, conveyance or place, if he has reason to believe from
personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing
that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance etc. is kept or concealed in
any building, conveyance or enclosed place. This power can be exercised freely
between sunrise and sunset but between sunset and sunrise if such an officer
proposes to enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place, he
must record the grounds for his belief that a search warrant or authorization
cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence
or facility for the escape of an offender.
Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides that any officer of any of the
departments mentioned in Section 42 may seize in any public place or in transit
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance etc. in respect of which he has
reason to believe that an offence punishable under the Act has been committed.
He is also authorized to detain and search any person whom he has reason to
believe to have committed an offence punishable under the Act. Explanation to
Section 43 lays down that for the purposes of this section, the expression
"public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other
place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.
Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section
42 contemplates entry into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed
place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in
transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the
requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such
proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public
conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not
required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section
42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the sunrise.
In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the
public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly
applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no
requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his
belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42.
Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was
also a member of the searching party. It has been held by this Court in M.
Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [2003 (8)
SCC 449] that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting
under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the
requirement of Section 42. For this reason also, in the facts of this case, it
was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42
of the NDPS Act."
9. Above being the position of law as stated above, the order of the High
Court is clearly unsustainable.
Section 42 has no application to the facts of the case. The order of the
High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. Respondent
accused shall surrender forthwith to custody to serve remainder of sentence.
10. Appeal is allowed.