Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 42 & 43 – Governing provisions, if s.42 or s.43 – Non-compliance of s.42 – Secret information received by PW-4 (S.I.) that accusedappellants were selling poppy straw in a vehicle – Raid conducted by PW-4 along with fellow officials – Accused-appellants found sitting in a Jeep – Notice served u/s.50 – Search led to recovery of poppy straw – Trial court convicted appellants u/s.15 rejecting their plea of acquittal on ground of non-compliance of s.42 – The trial court held that s.42 was inapplicable, and that the case was covered by s.43 as recovery was effected from the appellants while they were sitting on road in a jeep at a public place – Conviction confirmed by High Court, which affirmed the view of trial court – On appeal, held: Evidence showed that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to one of the accused – Registration Certificate of the vehicle also did not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle – Explanation to s.43 showed that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in s.43 – Thus, the instant case would not come u/s.43 but would be governed by provisions of s.42 – However, on facts, s.42 having not been complied with at all, the appellants were entitled to acquittal.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.43 – Expression “public place” as explained in s.43 – Ambit of – Held: Explanation to s. 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” – Words and Phrases – Expression “public place”.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.42 – Requirements of – Substantial or adequate compliance vis-à-vis total non-compliance – Held: Total non-compliance of s.42 is impermissible – The rigor of s.42 may get lessened in situations dealt with in Karnail Singh case but in no case, total non-compliance of s.42 can be accepted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to one the accused-appellants. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43. The relevant provision would not be Section 43 but the case would come under Section 42. [Para 12][188-E-G]
1.2. It is an admitted position that there was total noncompliance of the requirement of Section 42. Total noncompliance of Section 42 is impermissible. The rigor of Section
42 may get lessened in situations dealt with in the conclusion drawn by this Court in Karnail Singh but in no case, total noncompliance of Section 42 can be accepted. In the circumstances, the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. [Paras 13, 14 and 15][188-G-H; 189-A-B]
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539: [2009] 11 SCR 470 – followed.
State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh alias Hansa (2016)
11 SCC 687: [2016] 4 SCR 451– relied on.
Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 212 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.