A duly empowered officer’s daytime search, seizure, and subsequent arrest complied with NDPS Act Section 42.

The petitioner challenged the charge sheet and cognizance in proceedings arising from an alleged recovery of ganja from his apartment in Mangaluru.

The prosecution alleged that police acted on information about ganja being stored and sold there, obtained a search warrant, searched the premises, seized ganja and arrested the petitioner.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and (B), and 27(b) of the NDPS Act, alleging non-compliance with Section 42 and relying on the quashing of proceedings against other accused said to be consumers.

Whether the search, seizure and arrest allegedly conducted before the seizure was completed violated Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

Whether the quashing of proceedings against other accused entitled the petitioner to similar relief on the ground of parity.

Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act empowers duly authorised officers of the specified rank to enter, search, seize and detain or arrest in connection with suspected NDPS offences where the statutory conditions are met.

Ordinarily, a search under the provision must be conducted between sunrise and sunset; a search between sunset and sunrise requires recorded grounds for believing that obtaining a warrant or authorisation would risk concealment of evidence or escape.

Parity does not warrant identical relief where the allegations and circumstances attributed to the accused are materially different.

The Court found that the search took place after sunrise and before sunset, and that the officer was a Police Inspector empowered to exercise the relevant statutory powers.

On the material before it, the officer had received information, searched the premises, allegedly found and seized ganja, and then arrested the petitioner; accordingly, the Court rejected the claimed violation of Section 42(1).

It also distinguished the petitioner’s alleged possession and dealing in ganja from the other accused, whom the petitioner described as consumers, and held that their cases did not establish entitlement to relief on parity.

It also disposed of the pending interlocutory applications as not surviving for consideration.