LexRAJENDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 879 .. .. RAJENDER SINGH A v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2009) ; AUGUST 08, 2011 B > [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act: s.42 - Non-compliance of - Held: s. 42 pre-supposes that if an authorized officer has reason to believe from personal c knowledge or information received by him that some person is dealing in a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance, he should ordinarily take down the information in writing except • in. cases of urgency which are set out in the Section itself - ,? s . .42(2) is categorical that the information if taken down in D j writing shall be· sent to the superior officer forthwith - Non- compliance with the provisions sub-section (1) and (2) of s.42 is impermissible but delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for the delay can, however, be countenanced - In the instant case, appellant was convicted u/s. 18 on the E basis of statement of PW-5, DSP and PW-6, Inspector and recovery of opium from the residence of the appellant - PW- 6 clearly admitted that he had not prepared any record about ~ the secret information received by him in writing and had not sent any such information to the higher authorities - Likewise, F PW-5 did not state that he received any written information from his junior officer Inspector - Dispatch of a wireless message to PW-6 does not amount to compliance with s.42(2) of the Act - There was, therefore, complete non-compliance with the provisions of s. 42(2) of the Act which vitiated the G ,. conviction of the appellant. The prosecution case was that on 30.1.1997, PW-6, inspector of the CIA staff sent a Ruqa to Police station that while he was present at the bus adda of the village 879 H 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. 1. in connection with the investigation of a case, he had received secret information that the appellant was an opium addict and was also dealing in its sale and that he had kept some opium in the shed used for storing fodder in his farm house. On the basis of said Ruqa, a formal FIR 8 was drawn up for the offence punishable under section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985. A wireless message was also sent to the DSP, PW-5 to reach the spot. The effort of the police party, however, to join some independent witnesses from the public was unsuccessful. In the c meanwhile, PW-5 also reached that place and the police party made its way to the farm house of the appellant. The fodder room was opened after taking the key from the appellant and searched which led to the recovery of 3.500 kilograms of opium. 50 grams was taken out for sampling 0 and the remainder of the opium was sealed. The appellant was also arrested by the DSP and after .completion of the investigation, was charged under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and was accordingly brought to trial. The E prosecution placed almost exclusive reliance on the statements of PW-5 DSP and PW-6 Inspector as also the recovery of the opium from the residence of the appellant. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted that he had already been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on the 15th March 1997 F for having been found in possession of 14 Kilograms of Heroin, though an appeal had been filed against the conviction. He also stated that he was on bail in that appeal. G The trial court relying on the said evidence and circumstances held that the case against the appellant had been proved beyond doubt and merely because no independent witness had been associated with the proceedings could not be taken against the prosecution H as an effort had been made to associate some witness, ' RAJENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 881 .. , but no one agreed to the police request. The court also A found that the provisions of Sections 52, 55 and 57 of the Act were complied with. and no prejudice could, therefore, be claimed by the appellant. The court further observed that it was clear from the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 that j. the provisions of Section 42 of the Act had been complied B with as the secret information received by PW-6 were recorded by him in a Ruqa which had been sent to the Police Station for registration of a FIR and that he had also informed PW-5 on wireless about the information received by him on which the latter had reached the place c of s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.