Ruqa Sent Before Search Satisfies Section 42 NDPS, Supreme Court Holds in Poppy Husk Case

On 4 May 2014, a police party at a naka near Village Tehang, Jalandhar, received secret information that the appellant and his brother were carrying poppy husk in a Tata Safari (para 5). The investigating officer sent a ruqa to the police station, on which the FIR was registered, intercepted the vehicle and telephoned the DSP, who supervised the search (paras 5-7). Ten bags, about 200 kg, were found beneath a tarpaulin; a personal search yielded nothing (para 7). The Special Court discarded a further recovery of eight bags from their house but convicted both for the vehicle recovery, and the High Court dismissed their appeal (paras 13-14, 17).

Section 42 requires information to be written down and a copy sent to the immediate superior within 72 hours, but Karnail Singh allows this to be postponed when information received on the move calls for immediate action (paras 26-27). Darshan Singh rightly holds that registering an FIR does not by itself show compliance, but it does not bar weighing the officer's own writing with other circumstances (para 29). Here the tip-off came at a naka about a vehicle in transit; its substance was recorded in the ruqa and dispatched before the search; and the DSP was informed and supervised the search. That was substantial compliance, with no prejudice shown (paras 30, 33). Section 50 applies to a search of the person; as nothing was recovered from the personal search, it was not attracted, and the DSP's rank did not matter (paras 35-37). The delay in sending samples was a procedural irregularity, answered by the Magistrate recording the seals intact the next day (paras 38-39). The vehicle search needed no independent witnesses under Section 100(4) CrPC, and "what is material for the purposes of Section 15 of the NDPS Act 1985 is possession and not title" (paras 43, 47).