G. SRINIVASGOUD versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 03-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
G. SRINIV AS GOUD 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
OCTOBER 3, 2005 
B 
(ARUN KUMAR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
Section 42(2)-lnformation leading to search and seizure, taken down 
C in writing by Gazetted Officer-Sending of, to immediate superior-
Compliance-Necessity of-Held: Compliance of such requirement is 
necessary where action is without authorization by officers below rank of 
Gazetted Officers-Gazetted Officers have power to authorize subordinates to 
proceed to action-They cannot be equated to officers taking action without 
authorization or warrants. 
Sections 22 and 42-Search and seizure of contraband article from the 
occupants of the premises-Conviction-Plea that non-association of 
independent witnesses and non-compliance of section 42, thus conviction not 
correct-On appeal, held: Panchnama was signed by two independent 
witnesses-Officer had reduced in writing the information received-Further, 
the Officer carrying out search and seizure being Gazatted Officer could act 
on his own and send copy of information to the superior Officers-Hence, 
conviction justified. 
The contraband drug- Diazepam of20 kg in quantity was recovered 
from the appellant - accused. Both the trial court and High Court convicted 
the appellant under section 22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-accused contended that the information received by the Officer 
was not reduced in writing before proceeding for search and the copy of the 
information was not sent to the immediate official superior, as such there 
was non-compliance of section 42; and that there was non-association of 
independent witnesses; hence the conviction was not justified. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
840 
' 
• 
G. SRINIVASGOUDv. STATE OF A.P. 
841 
HELD: 1.1. Section 41(2) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic A 
Substances Act, 1985 refers to only officers of gazetted rank and it is such 
officers who can authorize their subordinates not below the rank of peon, sepoy 
and constable, to carry out arrest, search of seizure. The function of arrest, 
search and seizure carried out under Section 42(1) is by officers who do not 
have warrants or authorization in their hands before proceeding to take action 
as per the heading of the Section. The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section B 
42 are meant to cover cases falling under Section 42(1). Therefore, the 
requirement of informing immediate official superior under Section 42(2) 
need not to be extended to cases of arrest, search and seizure by officers of 
gazetted rank. The officer of gazetted rank while authorising junior officers 
under Section 41(2) knows what he is requiring them to do and, therefore, C 
there is no need for reporting. For this reason Section 41 does not contain 
any such requirement. The need for reporting to the immediate official 
superior under Section 42(2) arises because the officer proceeds without 
authorisation in terms of section 41(1) or 41(2). It has to be confined to cases 
where the action is without authorisation by officers below the rank of gazetted 
officers. (846-C-D-E-F) 
D 
1.2. It will be anomalous to say that officers of gazetted rank who are 
conferred with power to authorise junior officers to carry out arrest, search 
and seizure, are required to report to their superior officers when they carry 
out arrest, search or seizure on their own. The rationale for this provision of E 
informing superiors appears to be that when the arrest, search and seizure 
is without authorisation by gazetted rank officers, the officers taking action 
must keep their superiors informed. The superior officers must know about 
the action taken by their subordinates. However, the position of gazetted rank 
officers, in view of their rank and seniority and power to authorise 
subordinates to proceed to action, is totally different. They are the source of F 
power of authorization. The gazetted rank officers enjoy special position and 
privileges under the Act. They need not be equated to officers taking action 
without authorisation or warrants. The requirement of sending information 
to superior officers under Section 42(2) cannot be insisted upon in their case. 
There is no bar in the statute to functions of arrest, search and seizure being G 
carried out by the officers of the gazetted rank themselves. When they act on 
their own, they do not have to report to their seni

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