Wireless Message to DSP and Ruqa From Spot Are Substantial Compliance With Section 42 NDPS, Supreme Court Holds

On 2 December 1995, an inspector on patrol near Bhawani Khera received secret information that the petitioner was selling poppy husk from his house (para 2). The police raided the house; the petitioner disclosed that he had hidden six bags in a locked room, the inspector sent a wireless message to the DSP, Kurukshetra, and in the DSP's presence the petitioner unlocked the room with his key, from which six bags of 32 kg each were recovered (para 2). The Special Court, Kurukshetra convicted him under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment; the High Court reduced the sentence to 10 years (paras 1-3).

With technology enabling fast exchange of information, Section 42 must be read in the changed context (para 12). Following Sajan Abraham, there is substantial compliance if the information received is later sent to the superior officer (para 12). Here, on reaching the spot the investigating officer sent a wireless message to the DSP, his immediate superior, and after the recovery a ruqa with all the facts was sent from the spot to the police station, on which the FIR was registered and copies were sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate and higher officers (para 12). That was substantial compliance, and "no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the accused" by the information not being reduced into writing (para 12). Under Karnail Singh, non-compliance with Section 42 may not vitiate the trial without prejudice, and adequacy of compliance is a question of fact (para 13). Section 57 is not mandatory, and the arrest and seizure were reported to the police station in any event (para 14). Conscious possession was established because the bags came from a room the petitioner opened with a key in his possession (para 15).