BAHADUR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 06-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 402 
BAHADUR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5523 of 2009) 
APRIL 6, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- ss. 42 and 57 - Recovery of contraband from the premises, 
C key of which was in possession of the accused - Conviction 
by courts below - Non-compliance of ss. 42 and 57 pleaded 
- Held: Non-compliance with Section 42 would not vitiate the 
trial, if it did not cause prejudice to the accused. Held further: 
Section 57 not mandatory. On facts, the provisions under the 
D Sections were complied with - Accused was also found in 
possession of the contraband. 
On a secret information, police party raided the 
house of the petitioner-accused. On interrogation, he 
E disclosed that he had concealed six bags of Poppy Husk 
in a locked room and the key of the room was with him. 
On his opening the room, six bags of contraband were 
recovered. Trial Court convicted him. High Court upheld 
the conviction while reducing the sentence. 
F 
In the SLP, petitioner-accused contended that the 
trial stood vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory 
provisions of Sections 42 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs 
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and that the 
petitioner cannot be said to have been found in 
G conscious possession of the contraband. 
Dismissing the SLP, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Non-compliance with the provisions of 
Section 42 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
H 
402 
BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
403 
Substances Act, 1985 may not vitiate the trial, if it did not A 
cause any prejudice to the accused. Furthermore, 
whether there is adequate compliance of Section 42 or 
not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. [Para 
13] [410-A-B] 
1.2. With the advancement of technology and the 8 
availability of high speed exchange of information, some 
of the provisions of the NDPS Act, including Section 42, 
have to be read in the changed context. The delay caused 
in complying with the provisions of Section 42 could 
result in the escape of the offender or even removal of C 
the contraband, there would be substantial compliance, 
if the information received were subsequently sent to the 
superior officer. [Para 12] [409-C-D] 
1.3. In the instant case, as soon as the .investigating o 
officer reached the spot, he sent a wireless message to 
his immediate higher officer and subsequent to recovery 
of the contraband, a Ruqa containing all the facts and 
circumstances of the case was also sent to the Police 
Station from the spot from where the recovery was made E 
on the basis whereof the First Information Report was 
registered and copies thereof were sent to the //aqa 
Magistrate and also to the higher police officers. There 
was, therefore, substantial compliance with the 
provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and no 
prejudice was shown to have been caused to the F 
accused on account of non-reduction of secret 
information into writing and non-sending of the same to 
the higher officer immediately thereafter. [Para 12] [409-
E-H] 
Kamai/ Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539, 
followed. 
State of Punjab vs. 
Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299; 
Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kera/a (2001) 6 SCC 692, relied 
on. 
G 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Directorate of Revenue and Anr. vs. Mohammed Nisar 
Holia (2008) 2 SCC 370; Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. 
State of Gujarat (2000) SCC (Cri) 496, referred to. 
2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 57 of 
8 
NDPS Act is not mandatory, and, in any event, information 
of the arrest of the petitioner a-nd seizure of the 
contraband had been duly reported to the local police-
station on the basis of which the First Information Report 
had been drawn up. [Para 14] [410-B-C] 
C 
3. It is not correct to say that the petitioner had not 
been found in the conscious possession of the 
contraband, having particular regard to the fact that the 
six bags containing 32 kilograms of Poppy Husk in each 
of the bags were not only recovered from the premises 
D of the petitioner but from a room which was opened by 
him with a key in his possession. [Para 15] (410-D-E] 
Case Law Reference: 
(2008) 2 sec 310 
Referred to. 
Para 4 
E 
(2000) sec (Cri) 496 
Referred to. 
Para 5 
(2001) s sec 692 
Relied on. 
Para 12 
(2009) s sec 539 
followed. 
Para 13 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Criminal) 
No. 5523 of 2009. 
From the Judgment

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.