Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court has held that where narcotics-related information is received in circumstances requiring the immediate interception of a moving vehicle, the requirements of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have to be assessed in the context of the urgency of the situation. On the facts of the case, the Court found substantial compliance with the statutory safeguards and refused to invalidate the recovery on the basis of procedural deficiencies.

The Court made the observations while dismissing the appeal of a person, who was convicted for possession of 200 kg of poppy husk. The Court upheld his 10-year rigorous imprisonment and ₹1 lakh fine.

One question before the Supreme Court was whether the police had complied with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which regulates the power of an empowered officer to enter, search and seize narcotic substances without a warrant when acting on information concerning drugs concealed in a building, conveyance or enclosed place.

Section 42 requires information received by an empowered officer to be taken down in writing, and Section 42(2) requires a copy of the information, or the recorded grounds for a warrantless search in certain circumstances, to be sent to the officer's immediate superior within 72 hours.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih upheld the conviction of a man who was found in conscious possession of ten bags of poppy husk, each of 20 KGs, in a Tata Safari car, which was owned by a different person. Amongst other grounds, the Appellant-convict challenged his conviction primarily on the non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Appellant-convict argued that the police officer, who conducted the search, failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of formally entering the information received by a police officer into an official register, and to officially communicate the same to the senior officer.

Opposing the Appellant's stand, the Respondent-prosecution supported the conviction stating that there was substantial compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the law doesn't mandate full compliance when the police officer is moving or on patrol. In such a case, substantial compliance of the provision is enough.

Reference was made to the constitution bench judgment of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, to argue that when the Investigating Officer receives the information while not at the Police Station but on the move, it was not necessary that the same be immediately reduced into writing and passed on to the immediate official superior. In Karnail Singh (supra), the Court held that the fact that a police officer informed the Police Station by sending a communication, and that the superior officer had thereafter been informed on telephone and requested to reach the place of recovery, would be substantive compliance.

The Court recalled that the Constitution Bench in Karnail Singh had reconciled the earlier decisions in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat and Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala and settled the law on Section 42 compliance.

Under the rule formulated in Karnail Singh, the normal position is that an officer receiving information under Section 42 must record it in writing and forthwith send a copy to the immediate superior before proceeding with the search or seizure.

But the Constitution Bench carved out an important qualification for situations of urgency. Where the information is received when the officer is not at the police station but is on patrol or otherwise on the move, and the information calls for immediate action because delay could result in the removal or destruction of the contraband or evidence, it may not be feasible or practical to reduce the information into writing before acting.

In such circumstances, Karnail Singh permits the officer to proceed with the search and seizure and record the information and inform the superior officer as soon as practicable thereafter. The Constitution Bench accordingly described the question as one of “urgency and expediency”, while making clear that total non-compliance remains impermissible. Delayed compliance can constitute sufficient compliance if the delay is satisfactorily explained; conversely, where an officer neither re

Finding force in the prosecution's submission, the judgment authored by Justice Masih noted that there had been substantial compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Court examined whether the purpose behind Section 42 had been substantially fulfilled. It noted that the investigating officer had acted promptly on the information, prepared the ruqa, caused the information to reach the police station and secured the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police at the spot. The Court therefore found no basis to hold that the recovery became illegal merely because every procedural step contemplated by Section 42 had not been followed in its most formal manner.

“…there had been substantial compliance, a wireless message having been sent to the immediate higher officer and a ruqa containing the facts and circumstances of the case having been sent from the spot to the Police Station, upon the basis whereof the FIR came to be registered, and no prejudice having been shown to have been caused to the accused by the non-reduction of the secret information into writing. We do not find that the Special Court erred in applying it, nor that the High Court erred in affirming the conclusion so reached.”, the Court observed.

The Court specifically referred to the Karnail Singh (supra) case to note that since no prejudice caused to the accused was shown, and there had been substantial compliance with Section 42, therefore, a delayed compliance of the mandatory requisite would not vitiate the trial.

“Upon a consideration of the circumstances as a whole, we hold that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985. The information, received upon a public road and relating to a vehicle then in transit and expected imminently, called for immediate action of the kind contemplated by clause (b) of paragraph 35 of Karnail Singh case (supra); its substance was reduced into writing in the ruqa, Ex. P-1, and dispatched before the search was undertaken; the officer superior in rank was informed of its receipt, was summoned to the spot, and the search was conducted in his presence and under his supervision; and no prejudice of any description has been shown to have been occasioned to the Appellant by the manner in which the officer proceeded. The case is thus not one of a total absence of compliance, and the delayed and imperfect character of what was done stands sufficiently explained by the exigency which the situation presented.”, the Court observed.

The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 15(c) of the Act to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of INR 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) was sustained.

Cause Title: KASHMIR RAM @ PAPPI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gautam Das, AOR Mr. Aban Kant Sahu, Adv. Mr. Kushi Chopra, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vandana Miglani, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Adv.

Tags: