Click the Play button to listen to article

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the expression “khufia Suragh Barari” used in a police diary entry does not signify specific prior information of an NDPS offence so as to trigger the mandatory compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Court observed that the expression refers to a general search or endeavour by the police to obtain secret information regarding the possibility of commission of an offence in a particular area. 

Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Plea of the applicant that 'khufia Suragh Barari' means prior information of the offence is misconceived. … Suragh Barari does not mean the prior information of commission of offence. It is general search or endeavour to obtain secret information apprehending possibility of commission of offence at some place or area.” 

Background:

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Brow, Kullu, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Dinesh Kumar was convicted by the Special Judge-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, in connection with the recovery of contraband.

Aggrieved by the conviction, he approached the High Court seeking suspension of his sentence, primarily contending that the police had prior information but failed to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 

The High Court rejected the applicant's contention that the police had received specific prior information attracting Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It held that “khufia Suragh Barari” merely indicated a general police effort to investigate, track or obtain clues regarding possible narcotics offences, and was not specific information identifying any person, vehicle or manner of transportation of contraband. 

The Court also declined to find a fatal defect in the chain of custody on account of the blank column in the NCB form. It noted that the first Investigating Officer had handed over the parcel to the second Investigating Officer, who produced it before the SHO for re-sealing.

The relevant General Diary entries also recorded the subsequent handling and dispatch of the contraband, thereby providing the necessary link evidence. 

The Bench further held that the testimony of the prosecution could not be discarded merely because the independent witness had turned hostile. The witness had corroborated the presence of the police, accused and vehicles at the spot, while the Court observed that a conviction can be based on reliable and convincing evidence of police officials. 

Considering the entire material on record, the Court found no fair chance of acquittal on the grounds raised by the applicant and consequently declined to suspend his sentence. The application was accordingly dismissed. 

Case Name: Dinesh Kumar v/s State of H.P.

Case No.: Cr.MP No.2782 of 2025

Date of Decision: 11.08.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: