STATE OF KARNATAKA versus DONDUSA NAMASA BADDI

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 05-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 670 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
DONDUSA NAMASA BADDI 
(Criminal Appeal No 123 of 1997) 
AUGUST 5, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.) 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
s.42(2) - Non-compliance of - HELD: Concededly, no 
information was taken down in writing by the police officer or 
conveyed to his immediate superior- It is not the case of the 
prosecution that sufficient time was not available to record the 
information in writing and send it to the superior officer - In 
· D the circumstanc(f§, any oral evidence of the police officer will 
not be in compliance with the provisions of s. 42(2) - Appeal 
of the State dismissed. 
Kamai/ Singh vs. State of Haryana 2009 (11) SCR 470 
E = (2009) s sec 539 - followed. 
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat 2000 
(1) SCR 542 = (2000) 2 SCC 513; and Sajan Abraham v. 
State of Kera/a 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 335 = (2001) 6 SCC 
F 692 - referred to. 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
2009 (11) SCR 470 
2000 (1) SCR 542 
followed 
referred to 
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 335 referred to 
para 2 
para 2 
para 2 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 123 of 1997. 
670 
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. DONDUSA NAMASA 
671 
BADDI 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.1995 of the A 
High Court of Karnatka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 
277 of 1993. 
Anil Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Malviya, Ramesh Mishra, 
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Appellant. 
B 
S.N. Bhat for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
c 
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
2. This matter arises out of a search and seizure which 
took place on 3rd September, 1987. This <appeal was also 
adjourned time and again since the year 1997 to await the o 
decision of the Constitution Bench. This decision has come and 
is reported as Kamai/ Singh V. State of Haryana (2009) 8 
SCC 539. The question· posed was as to the effect of non-
compliance with the provisions of Section 42 and in particular 
42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
E 
1985. This matter was referred to the Constitution Bench owing 
to an apparent conflict between two judgments of this Court, 
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2000) 2 
SCC 513 wherein it was held by a three Judge Bench that 
compliance with Section 42(2) of the Act was mandatory and 
F 
failure of the police officer to take down the information 
received by him in writing and to forthwith send a report to his 
immediate official superior would cause prejudice to the 
accused whereas in Sajan Abraham v. State of Kera/a (2001) 
6 sec 692 which had also been decided by a three Judge 
Bench it had been held that substantial compliance with the G 
provisions of Section 42 was sufficient. In Karnail Singh's case, 
however, the Constitution Bench has observed thus: 
32. Under Section 42(2) as it stood prior to the amendment 
such empowered officer who takes down any information 
H 
672 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 
42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his 
immediate official superior. If there is total non-
compliance with this provision the same would adversely 
affect the prosecution case and to that extent it is 
mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or 
whether the same has been explained or not, will be a 
question of fact in each case, it is to be concluded that 
the mandatory enforcement of the provisions of Section 
42 of the Act non-compliance of which may vitiate a trial 
has been restricted only to the provision of sending a 
copy of the information written down by the empowered 
officer to immediateofficial superior and not to any other 
condition of the Section. 
And again. 
35 (d) While total non-compliance with requirements of 
sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, 
delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the 
delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To 
illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping 
or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not 
recording in writing the information received, before 
initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information 
to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as 
violation of Section 42. But if the information was received 
when the police officer was in the police station with 
sufficient tim

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