Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideDarshan Singh v. State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2009
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 2 September 2015
- Bench
- Justices Jagdish Singh Khehar and R. Banumathi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 18, 20, 21, 25, 41, 42
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed. The appellant's conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act were set aside. The connected Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2009 was disposed of in the same terms, with the recovered amount and the fine to be refunded (paras 13-14).
Key holdings
- Section 42(1) requires secret information to be recorded in writing and communicated to the superior officer; this is separate and distinct from the CrPC procedure (para 11).
- The two procedures are exclusive of one another, so compliance with the FIR procedure does not show compliance with Section 42 (para 11).
- Where the officer neither recorded the information nor reported it, conclusion (d) of Karnail Singh applies and the conviction cannot stand (para 13).
- In the connected appeal, the recovered cash and the fine were ordered to be refunded to the appellant (para 14).
Brief Facts
While on patrol in Panipat, a Station House Officer received secret information that the appellant was selling charas, opium and smack to children of the locality, and raided his house (paras 1-2). The search recovered 30 grams of opium, 40 grams of charas and 9 grams of smack, along with Rs 56,141 in cash (para 2). The Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat convicted him under Sections 18, 20, 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him on each count to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000, the sentences to run concurrently (para 3). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed his appeal (para 4).
Court's Findings
The only question was whether registering the FIR and sending it to the Superintendent of Police was effective compliance with Section 42 (para 10). The trial court had recorded that the ruqa was sent immediately after the recovery and the FIR registered, with copies reaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police the same day (paras 8-9). The Court held that the Section 42(1) mandate to record the secret information in writing and communicate it to the superior officer is "separate and distinct" from the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code (para 11). "Compliance of one, would not infer the compliance of the other" (para 11). Section 42 must be followed as interpreted in Karnail Singh, and compliance will not be assumed merely because an FIR was registered and dispatched to the SP; registering and sending the FIR was therefore not sufficient compliance (paras 11-12). Section 42 was not complied with at all, so conclusion (d) of Karnail Singh applied fully and the conviction could not stand (para 13).
Legal Principle
Recording secret information and communicating it to the superior officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is an obligation separate from the FIR procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Registering an FIR and sending it to the Superintendent of Police does not by itself satisfy Section 42 (paras 11-12).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539
Total non-compliance with Section 42(1) and (2) is impermissible; where the officer neither records the information nor informs the superior, it is a clear violation (conclusion (d)).