Non-Compliance With Section 42 NDPS Act Mandate Regarding Private Vehicles in Public Places Vitiates Trial

The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, for which they were sentenced to ten years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

On January 29, 2021, acting on reliable information, the police intercepted a private Ford Endeavour vehicle.

Upon search, 37.240 kgs of contraband ganja was recovered from two poly gunny bags in the vehicle's backside.

The trial court held that since the vehicle was intercepted in a public place, Section 43 of the Act applied instead of Section 42, thereby excusing the rigors of recording and communicating information.

1. Whether the recovery of contraband from a private vehicle in a public place necessitates compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. Whether the prosecution successfully proved compliance with Section 42(1) and 42(2) regarding the recording and transmission of information to superior officers.

The court applied the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which requires an officer to reduce information to writing and send a copy to a superior within 72 hours.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Boota Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa, which established that a private vehicle does not fall under the definition of a "public place" under Section 43, thus making Section 42 applicable even if the vehicle is intercepted on a public road.

The court cited the Constitution Bench in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, affirming that non-compliance with Section 42 vitiates the trial.

The High Court found the trial court’s reliance on Section 43 erroneous because the contraband was seized from a private vehicle, which attracts Section 42.

Upon examining the evidence, the court noted that P.W. 17 (the informant) admitted he did not reduce the information to writing at the time of receipt or after arriving at the police station.

While the prosecution claimed a General Diary (G.D.) entry was made, this entry was never marked as an exhibit or proved in court.

P.W. 18 (the I.O.) admitted he did not seize the relevant G.D. entry, failed to examine the IIC who reportedly received the info, and did not examine any staff from superior offices to verify receipt of the mandatory reports.

This total lack of documentary proof regarding the recording and transmission of information was held to be a fatal breach of statutory safeguards.

The High Court allowed both appeals, set aside the common judgment of conviction and sentence dated February 29, 2024, acquitted the appellants, and ordered all bail bonds discharged.