Section 42 NDPS: Total Non-Compliance Is Fatal but Explained Delay Is Acceptable, Constitution Bench Holds in Karnail Singh

Two three-judge benches had taken different views of Section 42 (para 1). In Abdul Rashid, a police inspector acted on a tip-off about charas in an autorickshaw without writing it down or informing any superior, and the conviction was set aside (paras 4, 11). In Sajan Abraham, a sub-inspector on patrol in a jeep acted at once on information about a man selling injectable drugs; the Court found no violation because recording it first would have let the accused escape (paras 5, 11). Karnail Singh's appeal and a connected appeal were placed before the Constitution Bench to resolve the conflict (para 1).

The Court held that the two decisions "revolved on the facts and do not really lay down different prepositions of law" (para 11). Abdul Rashid was a case of total non-compliance: the officer neither took down the information nor informed his superior. In Sajan Abraham, the officer on patrol could not record the information before acting, but immediately sent the FIR and arrest records to his superior (para 11). Section 42 differs from Section 43, which permits seizure and arrest in a public place without recording reasons (para 12). Following Balbir Singh, total non-compliance with sending the copy to the superior affects the prosecution, while any delay is a question of fact (paras 10, 15). The 2001 amendment allowing 72 hours to send the copy reflects a legislative relaxation, and non-compliance may not vitiate the trial if it causes no prejudice to the accused (para 15). With officers now receiving information by mobile phone on the move, the provisions should not be misused as "a major ground for acquittal" (para 16).