NDPS Act | Being A Police Officer Doesn't Establish Authority To Conduct Search & Seizure: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld that acquittal in an NDPS Case, in the background of multiple infirmities and discrepancies in the prosecution case, including the fact that the officer who conducted search and seizure was posted as a Sub-Inspector and a Crime Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, and not as a Station House Officer of a police station.The bench of...
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld that acquittal in an NDPS Case, in the background of multiple infirmities and discrepancies in the prosecution case, including the fact that the officer who conducted search and seizure was posted as a Sub-Inspector and a Crime Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, and not as a Station House Officer of a police station.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the mere fact that an officer belongs to the police establishment does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of establishing that s/he was empowered under the relevant statutory provision to discharge a particular duty.
For context, the Court was hearing an appeal by the State against an order of the trial court that acquitted the respondent in an NDPS case.
As submitted by the State, based on a secret information received by the Crime Assistant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, the search and seizure of the respondent was conducted, leading to a recovery of around 2.5 Kgs of opium. Eventually a charge sheet was filed.
Based on comprehensive appraisal of evidence, put forth on record, trial court acquitted the respondent, against which the present appeal was filed.
After hearing the contentions and perusing the records, the Court highlighted that the trial court had reached the decision based on certain infirmities in relation to mandatory statutory compliance under certain NDPS provisions; competence and authority of the officer who conducted search and seizure, and certain other evidentiary discrepancies.
The Court stated that as per the trial court, the secret information, allegedly received by the Crime Assistant was neither reduced into writing, nor forwarded to his immediate superior office, as was mandated under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.
In this regard, the Court referred to Supreme Court ruling in Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, in which it was held that total non-compliance with the statutory requirement under the provision was impermissible, although delayed compliance might be acceptable if duly explained.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted another consideration of the trial court that related to the authority and competence of the crime assistant in conducting the search and seizure. The Court stated,
“In this context, the prosecution sought to rely upon the Central Government notification dated 16.02.1986, stated to have been issued in relation to the empowerment of police officers for conducting searches and seizures under the NDPS Act. The competence of the officer concerned, however, has to be determined with reference to the precise terms of the applicable notification and the capacity in which he was authorised to exercise the statutory powers. The mere fact that an officer belongs to the police establishment does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of establishing that he was duly empowered under the relevant statutory provision.”
In this background, coupled with some other evidentiary discrepancies noted by the trial court, the Court held that the conclusions reached by the trial court could not be seen as arbitrary or perverse.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.