DALEL SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 1129 · Decided: 07-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 S.C.R. 1129 
DALEL SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 7, 2009 
B 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
" 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- ss. 20 and 42 - Conviction uls. 20 - Challenged - Non-
compliance of s. 42 alleged - Held: Challenge not tenable -
c 
Information was received by PW6 Inspector when he was not 
in the police station but was on patrol duty - He immediately, 
after receipt of information, informed his superior officer ASP 
on wireless -Information having been transmitted through 
wireless, there was substantial compliance of s.42 since the 
D 
situation was of emergency- Had the police officer not moved 
in right earnest, the appellant-acf,used would have had 
opportunity to remove the contraband "charas" and escaped 
from the arms of police. 
PW6 Inspector, while on patrol duty, received secret 
E 
information that the appellant was selling "charas" and 
keeping it in his house and informed his superior officer 
PWS ASP on the wireless. Police party raided the house 
of the appellant and 6.5 kgs "charas" was recovered from 
F 
there. On basis of the evidence tendered by the raiding 
party, the trial court convicted the appellant under s.20 
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 
years. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. 
G 
'* 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
there was total non-compliance of the provision of 
Section 42 of the Act inasmuch as there was no recording 
of the information prior to taking any action, either before 
1129 
H 
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the raid or even thereafter; that the said non-compliance 
breached a mandatory provision of the Act and as such 
the said non-compliance was fatal to the prosecution 
case. The other point argued by the appellant was that 
·there were discrepancies inasmuch as PW 6 stated in his 
B statement that the recovered "charas" weighed 4% kg 
while PW1, an independent witness said on oath that the 
recovered "charas' weighed only 1.5 kg while, actually it 
was 6.5 kg which was alleged to have been recovered 
~ 
' 
I 
from the appellant. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The information was received by PW6 
Inspector when he was not in the police station but was 
on patrol duty in the town. He immediately, after receipt 
•
D of the information, informed his superior officer on 
wireless. There is no doubt that he did not record it in 
" 
writing but passed on it to his superior ASP by wireless. 
The fact that the superiol officer was informed is deposed 
to by ASP who appeared as PW5. Both the said 
E witnesses have deposed about the information having 
been transmitted through wireless and this would be a 
substantial compliance of Section 42 of the Act since the 
situation was of emergency. Had the police officer-not 
_( 
moved right in the earnest, the appellant-accused would 
F have had an opportunity to remove the contraband 
~
"charas" and escaped from the arms of police. There is 
no infirmity in the judgments of the courts below. [Para 
6] [1135-G-H; 1136-A-D] 
1.2. The contraband of "charas" was found in the 
G house of the appellant which was described as "gher" 
(compound). Besides, there is no serious cross-
+ 
examination of any of the witnesses on the question of 
ownership of the house. Insofar as the recovery of 
contraband "cllaras" is concerned, it has been fully 
H 
DALEL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1131 
established that 6.5 kg of "charas" was recovered and the 
A 
samples thereof were sent to the forensic laboratory 
along with the seals. The documents like panchanama 
and seizure memos clearly bring out the position that 6.5 
kg of charas was found in the plastic bag. On that 
backdrop, the error committed by witnesses could be 
8 
attributed to failure of human memory which is 
Jc 
inconsequential. [Para 4] [1133-C-F] 
Kamai/ Singh v. State of Haryana 2009(10) SCALE 255, 
followed. 
Case Law Reference: 
2009(10) SCALE 255 
followed 
Para 5 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
c 
No. 1034 of 2003. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.3.2003 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
No. 739 of 2000. 
Ratan Kumar Chaudhuri for the Appellant. 
Kamal Mohan Gupta (Not Present) for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. T

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