STATE. NCT OF DELHI versus MALVINDER SINGH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1109 · Decided: 21-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
f 
------< 
STATE. NCTOF DELHI 
A 
v. 
MALVINDER SINGH 
JUNE 21, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
_......, 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-ss. 42 and 
43-Applicability of s. 42-To cases where police officer on patrol duty 
conducts search and seizure, by stopping the vehicle in transit, in a public c 
place-Held : In such cases provision of s. 42 is not applicable in view of 
the provision uls. 43. 
The question for consideration in the present case was whether in a 
case where the police officer on patrol duty stops the vehicle in transit in a 
public place and conducts search and seizure, Section 42 of Narcotic Drugs D 
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is applicable. In this case High Court 
~,.. 
had acquitted the accused on the ground that in such a case secret information 
received was not reduced into writing and was also not sent to the Higher 
Officer and thus there was non-compliance of provision u/s 42 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. The order of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. 
Section 42 has no applic;ation to the facts of the case. In a case where the 
police officer on patrol duty stops the vehicle in transit in a public place and 
conducts search and seizure, Section 42 has no application. [Paras 9 and 7) 
(1114-E; 1112-H; 1113-A) F 
......>. 
1.2. Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 
provides that any officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 
may seize in any public place or in transit any narcotic drug or psychotropic 
substance etc. in respect of which he has reason to believe that an offence 
punishable under the Act has been committed. He is also authorized to detain G 
and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an 
offence punishable under the Act. Explanation to Section 43 lays down that 
for the purposes of this section, the expression "public place" includes any 
-t 
public conveyance, hote~ shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible 
to, the public. If a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer 
1109 
H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated 
by the proviso to ~tion 42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between 
sunset and the sunrise. (Para 81 (1113-E-H; 1I14-AI 
B 
c 
'State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh and Ors., 120041 5 SCC 188, relied 
on. 
2. It appears that no effort was made by the accused to call for the records 
of information, if any, sent. There is no statutory requirement that such a 
record should be produced in the court as a matter of course. [Paras 7 and 
6) 
T. Thomson v. State of Kara/a and Anr., [2002) 9 SCC 618, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.2001 of the High Court at New 
D Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1992. 
· B.B. Singh, Vikas Sharma and D.S. Mahra for the Appellant. 
K. Sarda Devi for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
of a learned Single Judge of· Delhi High Court directing acquittal of the · 
respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Accused'). Learned Session Judge, 
Delhi in Sessions Case No. 698 of 1991 found the accused guilty of the 
F offence punishable under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with d.efault 
stipulation. 
G 
' 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
On 20th February, 1990 Pran Nath, Sub Inspector of Special staff, north 
District, was on patrolling duty along with Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Sub-
Inspector, Puran Chand, Head Constable; Raghbir Singh, Head Constable; 
Ved Parkash Head Constable and other constables. At about 7 a.m., near the 
H petrol pump at Mall Road situated within the bounds of Police Station, 
r. 
STATE.NCTOFDELHl1·.MALVINDERSINGH[PASAYAT.J.j 
1111 
Timarpur. a police Informer gave information to Pran Nath, Sub Inspector of A 
the accused's possession of opium. 
Consequently, a raiding party was 
· organized. Jeet Lal, public witness was also joined in the raiding party beside.s 
the above mentioned cops. Thereafter. the members of the raiding party lay 
waiting at the Ring Road crossing, Timar

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