Holding

Total non‑compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act vitiates the conviction.

Summary

Inspector Kuldip Singh received secret information that the appellant was dealing in opium and sent a Ruqa to the police station, but he neither recorded the information in writing nor forwarded a copy to his superior as required by Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The DSP, Charanjit Singh, was alerted only by a wireless message. Police subsequently searched the appellant's farm, recovered 3.5 kg of opium and the appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The trial court and the High Court held that Section 42(2) had been complied with and upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court examined whether the lack of a written record and the failure to send a copy to the superior officer violated the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2). It held that total non‑compliance with Sections 42(1) and 42(2) is impermissible and vitiates the conviction, noting that a wireless message does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether failure to record secret information in writing and to forward it to the immediate superior as mandated by Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act invalidates the conviction.
Whether a wireless message can satisfy the requirement of sending a copy of the information to the superior officer under Section 42(2).
Whether delayed compliance with Section 42(2) is permissible in the circumstances of the case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 18, s. 42, s. 52, s. 55, s. 57

Subjects

NDPS ActSection 42search and seizureprocedural complianceconviction vitiatedacquittalwireless communicationrecord‑keeping

Judgment

[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 -
,?
j
s..42(2) is categorical that the information if taken down in D
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 search and seizure. The trial court further noted that
as the appellant was a previous convict, a lenient view
t
could not be taken in his case. He was accordingly
"'

j
a
sentenced to undergo 20 years RI and to pay fine of
Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to 'undergo
D
RI for 2 years. The judgment of the trial court was
confirmed in appeal by the High Court. The in,stant
appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. A reading of Section 42 of the Narcotic
.;
Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act pre-supposes
~ that if an authorized officer has reason to believe from
personal knowledge or information received by;him that
some person is dealing in a narcotic drug or a F
psychotropic substance, he should ordinarily 1'ke down
the information in writing except in cases of urgency
which are set out in the Section itself. Section 42(2) is
categorical that the information if taken down in writing
'
shall be sent to the superior officer forthwith. The total G
non-compliance with the provisions sub-section (1) and
~

(2) of Section 42 is impermissible but delayed compliance
with a satisfactory explanation for the delay can,
however, be countenanced. PW-6 clearly admitted in his
cross-examination that he had not prepared any record
H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A about the secret information received by him in writing .--
and had -not sent any such information to the higher
authorities. Likewise, PW-5 DSP did not utter a single
word about the receipt of any written information from his
junior officer Inspector. The dispatch of a wireless
B message to PW-6 does not amount to compliance with
Section 42(2) of the Act. There was, therefore, complete
non-compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2) of
the Act which vitiates the conviction. [Paras 4, 5, 6] [886·
G-H; 887-A-B; 888-G-H; 889-A·B]
c Kamai/ Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539:
2009 (11) SCR470; State of Kamataka vs. Dondusa Namasa
Baddi (2010) 12 sec 495: 2010 (9) SCR 670 - relied on.
~

Case Law Reference: '

D '
2009 (11) SCR 470 relied on Para 2
2010 (9) SCR 670 relied on Para 6
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
E No. 1051 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2004 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 218-DB of 1999. ~ 1

F Zafar Sadique, Asghar Khan, Balraj Dewan for the
Appellant.
Manjit Singh, AAG, Tarjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for
the Respondent.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HARJIT SINGH BEDl,J.
This appeal arises out of the following facts.
H 1. At about 4 p.m. on the 30th January 1997, PW-6
RAJENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 883
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
. Inspector Kuldip Singh of the CIA Staff, Hisar sent Ruqa Ex. A
~

PG to Police Station Bhuna that while he was present at the
Bus Adda of village Bhuna in connection with the investigation
of a case, he had received secret information that the appellant
Rajinder Singh @ Chhinder, was an opium addict and also
dealing in its sale, and that he had kept some opium in the B
' shed used for storing fodder in his farm house, and if raid was
organized, the opium could be recovered. On the basis of the
aforesaid Ruqa, a formal First Information Report was drawn
up for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter c
called the "Act"). A wireless message was also sent to the DSP,
Fatehabad PW-5 Charanjit Singh to reach the spot. The effort
of the police party, however, to join some independent
witnesses from the public was unsuccessful. In the meanwhile,
. PW-5 also reached that place and the police party made its
D
way to the farm house of the appellant. The lock on 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 and the remainder of the
opium was sealed. The appellant was also arrested by the
DSP and after completion of the investigation, was charged E
under Section 18 of the Act and was accordingly brought to trial.
.. The prosecution placed almost exclusive reliance on the
..... statements of PW-5 Charanjit Singh DSP and PW-6 Kuldip
Singh Inspector as also the recovery of the opium from the
residence of the appellant. In his statement under Section 313 F
of the Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted that he had already been
convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on the 15th
March 1997 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 aforesaid 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 c.ould not
be taken against the prosecution as an effort had been made H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A to associate some witness, but no one agreed to the police
request. The court also found that the provisions of Sections
52, 55 and 57 of the Act had been complied with and no
prejudice could, therefore, be claimed by the appellant. The
court further observed that it was clear from the evidence of
B PWs.5 and 6 that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act had
been complied with as the secret information received by PW-
6 had been 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
c him on which the latter had reached the place of search and
seizure. The trial court further noted that as the appellant was
a previous convict, a lenient view could not be taken in his case.
He was accordingly sentenced to undergo 20 years RI and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to '
undergo RI for 2 years. The judgment of the trial court had been ..
0
confirmed in appeal by the High Court leading to the present
proceedings before us.
2. Mr. Zafar Sadiqui, the learned c:mnsel for the appellant,
has made four submissions during the course of the hearing.
E He has first submitted that as the provisions of Section 42(2)
of the Act had not been complied with, the conviction of the
appellant could not be sustained in the light of the judgment of
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kamai/ Singh vs. State .
of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539. He has further submitted that
F no serious effort had been made to associate an independent
witness with the search and seizure and that the link evidence
in the case was also missing as the Malkhana register
pertaining to the recovered opium was deposited had not been
produced as evidence. He has finally submitted that as the
G provisions of Sections 52, 55 and 57 of the Act had not been
complied with was an additional reason as to why the conviction
could not be sustained. Mr. Manjit Dalal, the learned counsel
for the State of Haryana, has however supported the judgments
of the courts below and has pointed out that the Ruqa Exhibit
H PA had been sent to the Police Station for the registration of
RAJENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 885
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
,. _
the FIR and the fact that information had been conveyed on the A
wireless to DSP Charanjit Singh was sufficient compliance with
the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act. He has also
controverted the other submissions made by Mr. Sadiqui.
,
} 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and B
gone through the judgment impugned. To our mi~d. the entire
controversy hinges on Section 42 which is reproduced below:

"42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without
warrant or authorization. - (1) Any such officer (being an
officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of c
the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs,
Revenue Intelligence or any other department of the
• Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is
.j empowered in this behalf by general o'r special order by
the Central Government, or any such officer (being an D
officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of
the Revenue, Drugs Control, Excise, Police or any other
department of a State Government as is empowered in this
behalf by general or special order of the State
Government, if he has reason to believe from personal E
knowledge or information given by any person and taken
• down in writing, that any .narcotic drug, or psychotropic
... • substance, in respect of which an offence punishable under
Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other
article which may furnish evidence of the commission of F
such offence is kept or concealed in any building,
conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and
sunset,-
(a) enter into and search any such building,
~
conveyance or place; G

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and
remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011J 9 S.C.R.
. ~

A in the manufacture thereof and any other article and
any animal or conveyance which he has reason to
believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act
and any document or other article which he has
reason to believe may furnish evidence of the
B commission of any offence punishable under
Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance; and
{d) detain and search, and if he thinks proper, arrest
any person whom he has reason to believe to have
committed any offence punishable under Chapter
c IV relating to such drug or substance.

Provided that if such officer has reason to believe
that a search warrant or authorization cannot be
'
obtained without affording opportunity for the ~.

D concealment of evidence or facility for the escape
of an offender, he may enter and search such
building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time
between sunset and sunrise after recording the·
grounds of his belief.
E
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in
writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for
D
his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith
send a copy thereof to his immediate official
..
superior.
F
42(2) Where an officer takes down any information
in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds
for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall
within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his
G immediate official superior."
4. A reading of the above said provision pre-supposes
that if an authorized officer has reason to believe from personal
knowledge or information received by him that some person
H is dealing in a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance, he
RAJENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 887
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
L. should ordinarily take down the information in writing except in A
:::ases of urgency Which are set out in the Section itself. Section
42(2), however, which calls for interpretation in the matter
before us, is however categorical that the information if taken
down in writing shall be sent to the superior officer forthwith. In
Karnail Singh's case, this Court has held that the provisions of s
Section 42(2) are mandatory and the essence of the provisions
has been set out in the following terms: ,

"In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid
did not require literal compliance wit1h the requirements of C
Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that
the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be
fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as
·• follows:

(a) The Officer on receiving the information [of the nature D
referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any
person had to record it in writing in the register concerned
and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior,
before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a)
to (d) of Section 42(1). E
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was
not in the police station, but while he was on the move
either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone,
or other means, and the information calls for immediate F
action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or
evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be
feasible or practical to take down in writing the information
given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as
per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42 (1) and thereafter, as
soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and G
forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements
of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the
information received and sending a copy thereof to the H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A superior officer, should normally precede the entry,
search and seizure by the officer. But in special
circumstances involving emergent situations, the
recording of the information in writing and sending a copy
thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a
B reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and
seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.

(d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-
sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible,
delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about
c 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 of a copy of such
D 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 time to take action, and if the police
officer fails to record in writing the information received,
E or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then
it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation
of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer
does not record the information at all, and does not inform
the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear
F violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is
adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or
not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The
above position got strengthened with the amendment to
Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001."
G
5. It is therefore clear that the total non-compliance with the
provisions. sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 42 is
impermissible but delayed compliance with a satisfactory _
explanation for the delay can, however, be countenanced .. We
H have gone through the evidence of PW-6 Kuldip Singh. He
RAJENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 889
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
• -i
clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he had not A
prepared any record about the secret information received by
him in writing and had not sent any such information to the
higher authorities. Likewise, PW-5 DSP Charanjit Singh did not
utter a single word about the receipt of any written information
from his junior· officer Inspector Kuldip Singh. It is, therefore, B
clear that there has been complete non-compliance with the
provisions of Section 42(2) of the Act which vitiates the
conviction.

6. Mr. Dalal, the learned counsel for the respondent-State
has, however, referred to paragraph 34 of the judgment of the C
Constitution Bench in which general observations have been
made with regard to the provisions of Section 41 (1) and 42(2)
with respect to the latest electronic technology and the
possibility that the said provisions may not be entirely
applicable in such a situation. Concededly the present case D
does not fall in this category. In any case the principles settled
~by the Constitution Bench are in paragraph 35 and have
already been re-produced by us hereinabove. Likewise, the
dispatch of a wireless message to PW-6 does not amount to
compliance with Section 42(2) of the Act as held by this Court E
in State of Kamataka vs. Dondusa Namasa Baddi (2010) 12
sec 495.
7. In the light of the fact what has been held above, we are
not inclined to go to the other issues raised by Mr. Sadiqui. We, F
accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the
courts below and order the appellant's acquittal.

D.G. Appeal allowed.