DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE & ANR. versus MOHAMMED NISAR HOLIA

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 05-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE & ANR. 
V. 
MOHAMMED NISAR HOLIA 
DECEMBER 5, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, J 985; Ss. 8(c), 
22, 29, 42, 43, 66 and 67: 
c 
Narcotic drugs-Possession of----Search and seizure-Requirement 
of-Held: Power to make search and seizure founded upon and subject 
to satisfaction of the authority-Jn terms of provision u/s. J 65 Cr.P. C., 
accused must be informed about statutory requirements in regard to 
D search and seizure-An authority cannot be given an untrammeled 
power to infringe the right of privacy of any person-Court has to see 
'r· 
that such right not infringed unnecessarily-Statute mandates that 
prosecution must prove compliance of the provisions-Jn the absence 
of any evidence. the Court shall presume non-compliance of the 
E provisions by the prosecution-In the instant case, statutory 
requirements not complied with-Information, a fax message, received 
by the authority was illegible. therefore, not admissible in evidence in 
terms of s.67 of the Act-Xeroxed copy of the fax, as furnished. not 
proved in terms of s. 66 of the Act-Besides, no secondary evidence 
F could have been led lo prove another secondary evidence-Hence, the 
impugned judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment of trial 
Court convicting accused on ground of non-compliance with the 
statutory requirements ofs. 42 of the Act, does not suffer from any legal 
infirmily--Code of Criminal Procedure, J 97 3-s. J 65-Evidence Ac/, 
G 
J 872-Evidence-Secondary evidence-Interpretation of Statutes. 
NDPS Act-Scope of-Discussed. 
Search & Seizure-Right ofprivacy----Protection of-Discussed. 
r 
Conslitution of India. 1950; Article 21: 
H 
906 
DIRECTORATEOFREVENUEv. MOHAMMEDNISAR 
907 
HO LIA 
Narcotic drugs-Possession of-Search and seizure in terms of A 
provisions u/s.42of1905 Act vis-a-vis doctrine of due process under 
Article 21 of the Constitution-Held: Draconian provision under a 
statute may lead to harsh sentence-Therefore, protection of citizen 
from oppression and injustice is imperative-Thus, there is a need of 
striking balance between the requirement of law and enforcement B 
thereof-Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1905; 
s. 42-lnterpretation of Statutes. 
On receipt of an information, a fax message, that a person 
staying at a Hotel in Mumbai was in possession ofMandrex tablets 
for being transported from Delhi to Mumbai, a team of the Officers C 
of Directorate of Revenue and Intelligence proceeded to the Hotel 
and searched the suspect. A sum ofRs.4,25,000/- in cash and a fax 
copy of a receipt of Carriers from Delhi showing the consignment 
of the drugs was found in the Hotel room. The statement of the 
accused was also recorded in terms of Section 67 of the Narcotics D 
Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. Later, the consignment 
arrived as per details in the receipt. Accused-respondent was 
arrested relying on and on the basis of recovery of the fax message. 
The trial Court relying on the provisions under Section 66 of the Act 
held the respondent guilty of commission of an offence under Sections E 
8(c), 22 and 29 of the Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 
years and also imposed a fine ofRs.1,00,000/- on him. On appeal, 
the judgment of the trial Court was reversed by the High Court 
holding that the statutory requirements of Section 42 of the Act had 
not been complied with. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Revenue contended that as a hotel is a public place within the 
meaning of Section 43 of the Act, it was not necessary for the 
authority to comply with the provisions of Section 42 thereof. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 
G 
is a penal statute. It invades the rights of an accused to a large 
extent. It raises a presumption of a culpable mental state. Ordinarily, 
even an accused may not be released on bail having regard to Section H 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 37 of the Act. The Court has the power to publish names, address 
and business etc. of the offenders. Any document produced in 
evidence becomes admissible. A vast power of calling for information 
upon the authorities has been conferred by reason of Section 67 of 
the Act. [Para 9) [913-C, DJ 
B 
1.2. Power to make search and seizure as also to arrest an 
accused under the provisions of the Act is founded upon and subject 
to satisfaction of the officer as the term

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