Case: State of Rajasthan Vs. Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa

2. The prosecution case in the nutshell is: Shishupal Singh, Station House Officer, Bhadra received a secret information on 9th August, 1998 at 8 P.M. that a blue jeep car No. HR7 would come and pass through Haryana via Sirsa. A memo was prepared regarding the above information which was also entered into Roznamacha and information was also conveyed to the Circle Officer, Nohar at 8:05 p.m. on the same day through a constable. Station House Officer along with certain other police personnel proceeded after taking two independent witnesses namely Hawa Singh and Karam Singh. At 10:15 p.m. Jeep HR7 was seen coming from Sahaba. It was stated that one driver and two other persons were sitting who told their names as Jagraj Singh and Kishan Lal. Bags were lying in the jeep. Station House Officer gave notice to Jagraj and Krishan Lal and thereafter search was conducted. Nine bags containing opium powder were recovered from the jeep for which the accused were having no licence. Opium powder was weighed and two samples of 200 grams each were taken from each bag. Seizure memo was prepared on the spot. Both the persons were arrested. Material was sealed and after reaching the police station first information report being FIR No. 291/98 was registered. Samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and on receiving a positive report, chargesheet was filed against both the accused under section 8/15 of the Act. The prosecution produced 12 witnesses including Station House Officer, Shishupal Singh as2 Hawa singh and PD3. Before the learned Sessions Judge, accused contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42 (2) as well as Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with; both the independent witnesses have not supported the status of recovery and that entire action had taken place at police station; the chain of event is not present so as to convict the accused. The test report is not admissible and readable. The contentions of accused were refuted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Learned Sessions Judge held that information received by Station House Officer was recorded as Exh.4 and the same was sent to Circle Officer, Nohar by Exhibit. Hence, the Station House Officer has fully complied with the provisions of Sections 42(1) and 42(2). Sessions Judge further held that the vehicle was being used to transport passengers as has been clearly stated by4 Veera Ram, hence, as per explanation to Section 43 of the NDPS Act, vehicle was covered within the ambit of public place. Therefore, there was no need of any warrant or authority to search. Learned Sessions Judge also found that Section 50 was complied since notices were issued to both the accused before search. Sessions Judge noted that although both the independent witnesses have turned hostile but the police officers and officials have been examined on behalf of the prosecution with whom the fact of enmity has not been proved. Chain of event was complete. After coming to the aforesaid conclusion, learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused4. Both the Criminal Appeals filed by Kishan Lal and Jagraj Singh were decided by a common judgment of the High Court dated 24.11.2003. The High Court while allowing the appeal gave following reasons and findings:(i) The secret information which was recorded as Exh.1 Roznamacha it was not mentioned that two persons will come from Jhunjhnu who are carrying powder of opium, whereas, the information sent to the Circle Officer, Nohar which was also received by Circle Officer, Nohar the above fact was mentioned which was missing in the Exh.. In view of the above, Section 42(2) was not complied withof Section 42 provides that if such officer has reasons to believe, he may carry the search after recording the grounds of belief whereas no ground of belief as contemplated by the proviso was recorded in the present case and search took place after sun set which violates the provisions of Section 42(2) proviso(iii) The jeep which was the personal jeep of Viraram could not be treated as public transport vehicle. No evidence was brought on the record that there was any permit for public transport vehicle. The brother in law of Viraram i.e. Kartararam do not support the case that the vehicle was a public transport vehicle. Section 43 of the Act was not applicable; hence, the view of the court below that compliance of Section 42 was not necessary, is incorrect(iv) Further, the secret information from informer was received and recorded and search was conducted thereafter. The present was not a case of conducting the search at public place suddenly(v) The sealing of the material sample was not proper nor the sample of seal was deposited in the stock house. The seal vide which material has been sealed has not been kept safe any where, it remained in the possession of the officer who conducted the search5. The State of Rajasthan feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was compliance of provisions of Section 42(1) and (2) of Section 42 and moreover, the vehicle being used to carry passengers as has come in the statement of the owner of the vehicle Vira Ram4 and the search being at public place, by virtue of Section 43 there was no necessity of compliance of Section 42. It is further contended that minor discrepancy in Exh.4 and that of Exh.5 was inadvertent mistake due to which it cannot be said that provisions of Section 42(1) was not complied with. It is contended that Station House Officer and other police personnel accompanying the team have been examined and they have proved the recovery and chain of events. The High Court has committed error in acquitting the accused whereas there was sufficient ground and material to support the conviction order recorded by the Special Judge.

Court's reasoning:
17. There is nothing to impeach the aforesaid findings. We have also perused the statement of Vira Ram in which statement he has never even stated that he has any permit for running the vehicle as transport vehicle. He has stated that ..... I had given this jeep to Kartara Ram resident of ...... who is my relative to run it for transporting passengers Admittedly the jeep was intercepted and was seized by the police. In view of the above, the jeep cannot be said to be a public conveyance within the meaning of Explanation to Section 43. Hence, Section 43 was clearly not attracted and provisions of Section 42(1) proviso were required to be complied with and the aforesaid statutory mandatory provisions having not been complied with, the High Court did not commit any error in setting aside the conviction18. There is one more aspect which needs to be noted. The present is a case where prosecution himself has come with case that secret information was received from informer which information was recorded in Exh.1 Roznamacha and thereafter the Station House Officer with police party proceeded towards the scene. The present is not a case where the Station House Officer suddenly carried out search at a public place. The Station House Officer in his statement has also come up with the facts and case to prove compliance of Section 42. When search is conducted after recording information under Section 42(1), the provisions of Section 42 has to be complied with19. Thus the present is not a case where Section 43 can be said to have been attracted, hence,e of Section 42(1) proviso and Section 42(2) had seriously prejudiced the accused. This Court had occasion in large number of cases to consider the consequence of noncompliance of provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2), whether the entire trial stand vitiated due to above non compliance or conviction can be set aside. In this context reference is made to the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299. In the above batch of cases, the High Court has acquitted accused on the ground that search was conducted without conforming to the provisions of the NDPS Act24. It is also relevant to note another Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009 (8) SCC 539 , where this Court had again occasion to consider the provisions of Sections 42 and 50. The Constitution Bench noted the divergence of opinion in two earlier cases which has resulted in placing the matter before the larger Bench. The question was noticed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment which are to the following effect:1) In the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 2 SCC 513 , ae Bench of this Court held that compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) is mandatory and failure to take down the information in writing and forthwith send a report to his immediate official superior would cause prejudice to the accused. In the case of Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 692 , which was also decided by ae Bench, it was held that Section 42 was not mandatory and substantial compliance was sufficient2) In view of the conflicting opinions regarding the scope and applicability of Section 42 of the Act in the matter of conducting search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization, these appeals were placed before the Constitution Bench to resolve the issue3) The statement of objects and reasons of the NDPS Act makes it clear that to make the scheme of penalties sufficiently deterrent to meet the challenge of well organized gangs of smugglers, and to provide the officers of a number of important Central enforcement agencies like Narcotics, Customs, Central Excise, etc. with the power of investigation of offences with regard to new drugs of addiction which have come to be known as psychotropic substances posing serious problems to national governments, this comprehensive law was enacted by Parliament enabling exercise of control over25. After referring to the earlier judgments, the Constitution Bench came to the conclusion thate of requirement of Sections 42 and 50 is impermissible whereas delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation will be acceptable compliance of Section 42. The Constitution Bench noted the effect of the aforesaid two decisions in paragraph 5. The present is not a case where insofar as compliance of Section 42(1) proviso even an arguments based on substantial compliance is raised there is total noncompliance of Section 42(1) proviso. As observed above, Section 43 being not attracted search was to be conducted after complying the provisions of Section 42. We thus, conclude that the High Court has rightly held that non compliance of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) were proved on the record and the High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the conviction order.