LexRAJENDRA AND ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
RAJENDRA AND ANR.
v.
ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH
DECEMBER 17, 2003
B
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic ·Substances Act, 1985.
Sedions 8, 20(B)(l), 42, 43, 50, 55 and 57-"Ganja" seized fi·om
C suitcases of accused persons at Railway Platform-Whether Section 42
attracted-Held, for the application of Section 42, the commission of any
offence under Chapter IV or concealment of documents etc. must be in any
building, conveyance or enclosed space-On the facts, held, though
per se Section 42 had no application still there was compliance of Section
D 42(2) by the prosecution-Whether Section 50 attractted-Held, Section 50
only applies in case of personal search C?f person and not to search of
premises, vehicles or articles-On the facts, held, Section 50 not attracted
and hence no _violation of its provisions.
Prosecution Case was that on 31.3.2001 Inspector A, PW-10,
E received information that the two accused persons, R and K, waiting
at Railway Station were carrying contraband article (Ganja) in their
suitcases and bags and this information was duly recorded by him.
Thereafter, he proceeded with his staff to the Railway platform and
on search of the suitcases of the two accused persons found 40
F Kilograms of "Ganja" therein which was seized and seizure memos
were prepared. The seized articles were kept in sealed condition in the
Malkhana. Samples of seized articles were also taken and sealed and
sent with specimen of seal to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for
analysis and report supporting the prosecution case was also received
G from the laboratory. PW-10 also sent full report of the search and
seizure to the superior railway police officers· on 1.4.2001.
Trial Court convicted accused persons for commission of offences
punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(B){l) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which was also maintained
H by the High Court in appeal. Hence, this appeal by the accused persons.
986
--
,\
RAJENDRA v. STATE OF M.P.
987
Appellant contended that there was violation of Section 42 of the A
Act as there was no evidence of sending copies of the requisite
documents to the superior officers; that there was also violation of
Section 50 of the Act as before the search was made the accused
persons were not intirilated of their right to be searched in the presence
of prescribed authority; and that there was non-compliance with the B
requirements of Sections 55 and 57 of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 enables certain officers duly empowered in this C
behalf by the Central or State Government, as the case may be, to enter
into and search any building, conveyance or enclosed place for the
purpose mentioned therein without any warrant or authoriza.tion. Section
42 deals with "building, conveyance or enclosed place" whereas Section
43 deals with power of seizure and arrest in public place. Section 42
comprises of two components. One relates to the basis ofinformation i.e. D
(i) from personal knowledge (ii) information given by person and taken
down in writing. The second is that the information must relate to
commission of offence punishable under Chapter IV and/or keeping or
concealment of document or article in any building, conveyance or
enclosed place which may furnish evidence of commission of such offence. E
Unless both the components exist Section 42 has no application. Sub-
section (2) mandates that where an officer takes down any information
in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under
the proviso thereto, be shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate
official superior. Therefore, sub-section (2) only comes into operation
where the office concerned does the enumerated acts, in case any offence F
under Chapter IV has been committed or documents etc. are concealed
in any building, conveyance or enclosed space. Therefore, the commission
of the act or concealment of document etc. must be in any building,
conveyance or enclosed space. The trial Court and the High Court after
analyzing the evidence have come to hold that there was compliance of G
Section 42(2) in the sense that requisite documents were sent to the
superior officers, though per se Section 42 had no application to the facts
of the case. (992-C-D, G-H; 993-A-D)
State of Punjab v. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.