STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BHERU LAL

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 28-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013] 6 S.C.R. 252 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
BHERU LAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2006) 
MAY 28, 2013 
[DR. 8.$. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Narcotic {!)rugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
- s.42 - Scope and applicability of - Search, seizure and 
C arrest carried out by Sub-Inspector in temporary charge as 
Station House Officer - Whether can be held to be carried 
out by unauthorized officer and hence violative of s.42- Held: 
As per Government Notification a Sub-Inspector can be 
posted as Station House Officer - The officer in the instant 
D case (a Sub-Inspector) was posted as Station House Officer 
at the relevant time - Hence search, seizure and arrest by the 
officer not violative of s.42 - Notification No. F1(3)FD!Ex/85-
1 dated 16.10! 1986. 
E 
The question for Consideration in the present appeal 
was whether the search, seizure and arrest by the Sub-
Ins pector, (given temporary charge as Station House 
Officer at the relevant time), is violative of s. 42 of Narcotic 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 
whether on this account the whole trial becomes void ab 
F initio. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of the Notification No. F1(3) FD/Ex/ 
G 85-1 dated 16.10.1986, it is manifest that the Sub-
Inspectors of Police, posted as Station House Officers 
were authorised by the State to exercise the powers 
enumerated in Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic; Substances Act, 1985. There cannot be 
H 
252 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BHERU LAL 
253 
literal interpretation of Section 42(1) of the Act. The 
A 
provision employs the words "empowered in this behalf 
by general or special order of the State Government." The 
notification has stated "any Sub-Inspector posted as 
Station House Officer". [Paras 10, 11 and 14] [258-D-E, H; 
259-A; 261-D-E] 
B 
2. The High Court acquitted the respondent solely 
on the ground that PW-9 was posted as the Station 
House Officer and not PW-2,who conducted the search, 
seizure and arrest. It is the accepted position that PW-2 
was given temporary charge of the Station House Officer C 
at the relevant time. He received information from the 
reliable source. He complied with the other necessary 
requirements and proceeded to the spot to trap the 
accused. Any delay would have allowed the accused to 
escape. As per the Notification, a Sub Inspector of Police 
D 
can be posted as Station House Officer and at the relevant 
time PW-2 was in-charge Station House Officer. There is 
no justification to place unnecessary importance on the 
term "posted". PW-2 wa~, in fact, in-charge of the post 
of Station House Officer 1at that juncture. Therefore, the 
E 
search, seizure and arre~t carried out by him would not 
make the trial ab initio void. Thus, the High Court has 
fallen into grave error by opining that Section 42(1) of the 
Act was not complied with as the entire exercise was 
carried out by an officer who was not authorised. [Para 
F 
14] [261-E-H; 262-A-B] 
Kamai/ Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539: 
2009 (11) SCR 470 - followed. 
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2000) 
G 
2 SCC513: 2000 (1) SCR 542; Sajan Abraham v. State of 
Kara/a (2001) 6SCC 692: 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 335 -
refe~red to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2009 (11) SCR 470 
followed 
Para 12 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
2000 i1) SCR 542 
referred to 
2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 335 
referred to 
Para 12 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 36 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2004 of the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Crl. 
Appeal No, 659 of 2002. 
Dr. Manisha Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar for the Appellant. 
Atul Agarwal, Nitin Jain, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the 
Respondemt. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAI< MISRA, J. 1. The present appeal is directed 
against the judgment of acquittal dated 9.4.2004 passed by the 
learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of 
Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2002 whereby 
he has reversed the judgment of conviction and order of 
E sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS cases, 
Chittorgarh on 7.8.2002 and acquitted the respondent of the 
offences punishable under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs 
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act"). 
F 
2. Thie broad essential facts leading to trial of the 
respondent are that on 4.4.2001 about 5.45 p.m. Parveen 
Vyas,

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