1. Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2011 filed on behalf of appellant Dinesh Singh and Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2011 filed on behalf of appellant Jitendra Rai were preferred from Jail. However, in due course, appellant of Cr. Appeal No.1134 of 2011 was duly represented by the learned counsel while appellant of Cr. Appeal No.949 of 2011 was represented by the learned Amicus Curiae.
2. Both two above referred appeals commonly originate out of DRI Case no.06 of 2004, wherein judgment of conviction was delivered on 11.04.2011, convicting both the appellants namely Dinesh Singh and Jitendra Rai for an offence punishable under Sections 20(B), 23, 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and each one of them was sentenced vide order dated 18.04.2011 to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years as well as fine of Rs. One lac in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment of one year additionally under each head with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Muzaffarpur. Hence, this appeal.
3. R. K. Srivastava (PW-1), Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, on getting confidential information on 18.03.2004 to the effect that Ganja was being illegally transported by a container truck bearing registration no.WB-03-7686, came in action and after constituting a raiding party came over NH-28 near Panapur and seeing the aforesaid vehicle given signal to stop, whereupon vehicle stopped. On due search of container, 52 packets of Ganja weighing 468 kilograms was found and seized and on account thereof, the driver and Khalasi of the said truck were apprehended. It has further been averred that during course of interrogation, Jitendra Rai and Dinesh Singh, who were driver and cleaner respectively confessed their guilt and disclosed that they were carrying the aforesaid Ganja to be handed over at Pahari, Patna from Ruxaul and for that they were paid Rs.10,000/-. Because of the fact that transportation of aforesaid Ganja was in utter violation of Sections 20, 23 and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act hence accused were taken to custody. It has further been disclosed that after preparing sample, same was sent to recognized government laboratory that means to say Chemical Laboratory, Custom House, Kolkata and as per the report dated 29.04.2004, it has been found to be Ganja and on account thereof, after enquiry/ investigation complaint was filed on 14.09.2004, although, both the appellants were produced on 18.03.2004 itself on the basis of arrest memo, seizure memo, recovery memo, panchnama, history sheet with regard to institution of DRI Custom Case no.06 of 2004.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint petition, the trial commenced whereunder altogether four PWs have been examined. Out of whom, PW-1 is Rajesh Srivastava, complainant, PW-2 is Indradeo, Hawaldar, PW-3 is Rakesh Ranjan, Inspector, Central Excise and PW-4 is Rakesh Kumar an individual. Side by side also exhibited, Exhibit-1 seizure memo, Exhibit-2 series confessional statement of Jitendra Rai as well as Dinesh Singh, Exhibit-3 recovery memo, Exhibit-4 Panchnama, Exhibit-5 signature of complainant as well as others on sealed envelope containing sample, Exhibit-6 signature of complainant over complaint petition. Neither any DW nor any document has been exhibited on behalf of defence. After taking into account the evidences so produced during course of trial as well as hearing the parties vide judgment impugned the trial Court convicted both the appellants and sentenced the subject matter of instant appeal.
5. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence as well as that of false implication.
6. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted on behalf of appellants that they have been falsely implicated because of the fact that they failed grease palm of prosecution party. Had there been culpability, the appellants would not have stopped the vehicle on mere signaling. From the evidence of all the PWs, it is evident that container was not locked nay the alleged Ganja so recovered was anyway kept in such manner which could at least be out of eye of the raiding party and that happens to be sufficient to inter that it happens to be a case of plantation.
7. It has also been submitted that alleged confessional statement was nothing, but surfaced on account of ill-design of the prosecution party who coaxed the appellants, obtained their signatures on blank paper and got it converted as an extra-judicial confession. To avoid their humiliation during trial on this score, the prosecution party withheld identity of scribe Surendra Kumar as well as they also failed to produce the aforesaid Surendra Kumar, during course of trial for evidence. It has further been submitted that on bare perusal of Exhibit-2 and 2/1, it is evident that same was written on 18.03.2004 itself, the date of apprehension of appellants, but it was never produced before the Court on 18.03.2004 the date on which appellants were produced before the learned Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge. From the signature of the learned Sessions Judge having over Exhibit-2 and 2/1, it is apparent that the same was seen by the learned Sessions Judge on 14.09.2004. Apart from this, the manner whereunder the aforesaid confessional statement has been noted down itself suggest that it was taken down after obtaining L.T.I. on blank paper and was manufactured subsequently and that happens to be reason behind its non-production before the Court on 18.03.2004.
8. It has also been submitted that one Braj Bhushan Kumar also shown his presence over seizure list, but again his attendance has been withheld. However, another one Rakesh Kumar (PW-4), his evidence clearly suggests that he happens to be a set up person. Therefore, the aforesaid Exhibit-2 and 2/1 should not be accepted as a document created by fair means or a statement voluntarily made in terms of Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
9. It has further been submitted that not only compliance of Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act as well as Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have been violated rather intentionally and purposely there also happens to be a violation of Section 52(3) as well as Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The requirement of law has purposely been violated with ulterior motive is found sufficient to discredit the prosecution version.
10. It has also been submitted that from the evidence available on the record, it is evident that 52 packets of Ganja was seized. However, neither the complaint petition nor the seizure memo nay the evidences of prosecution witnesses disclose that sampling was effected after taking some portions of Ganja from each of these packets and in likewise manner, none of the PWs including PW-1, the complainant have spoken that they have sent the sample for chemical examination after taking permission from the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge as well as on which date the sampling was made, on which date it was sent to, on which date it was received and on which date the test was conducted, although, Exhibit-8 speaks dated 29.04.2004. It has further been submitted that none of the witnesses during course of evidence have stated that the seized Ganja was subject to destruction and during course thereof, there was compliance of Section 52(A)(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act nor the sample as per mandate in terms of Section 52(A)(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act was produced nor the seized material was produced and on account thereof, the prosecution case is bound to fall. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that there happens to be inconsistency amongst the PWs with regard to manner of intercepting the appellants which, the learned lower Court considered to be minor one, but in the background of deciduous character of prosecution will play a major part, whereupon their presence at the place of occurrence coupled with recovery became doubtful. Therefore, submitted that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court happens to be bad in law as well as on facts.
11. Controverting the aforesaid submission, it has been submitted on behalf of learned Special Public Prosecutor that minor discrepancy, which are natural one, must be ignored. Arrest of appellants followed with their production on 18.03.2004 on account of recovery of Ganja from the container being transported by truck bearing registration no.WB-03-7686 is out of controversy, because of the fact that the relevant documents with regard thereto had already been submitted along with production of appellants before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge. During production, the appellants have not disclosed that they happen to be victim of false implication. As such, the subsequent pleading is nothing, but an after thought story which has got no identity in the eye of law.
12. Then coming to the legal aspect, it has been submitted that though certain infirmities/ deficiencies are found persisting on the record, but those are not going to adversely affect upon the prospect of the trial as well as over its ultimate conclusion in the background of presence of exhibit-2, 2/1 and for that relied upon Khet Singh vs. Union of India, Appeal (Cri.) 31 of 2000 as well as Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India, Appeal (Cri.) 788 of 2005 and submitted that the confessional statement made by the accused before the Custom Officials, Officials of Narcotics Bureau, were admissible as they (DRI) were not the police officials in terms of Sections 24, 25 of the Evidence Act, hence the conviction bound to sustain on sole basis of confession. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is sustainable in the background of exhibit-2, 2/1.
13. It has also been submitted that so far evidence is concerned, that happens to be consistent one supporting the manner of search and seizure along with recording of confessional statement of both the appellants.
14. N.D.P.S. Act has a purpose, the first one to prevent the citizen from addiction protecting adverse social impact as well as to prevent its adverse impact upon the economy of the country and for that its application and sentence has been made stringent one. However, to avoid malicious prosecution certain provisions have been incorporated with significance, if taken into consideration properly will provide proper, adequate safeguard from malicious prosecution and that happens to be reason behind non-compliance thereof has been taken with gravity. In Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana reported in 2013 CRI.L.J. page 723. The Honble Apex Court took pain and decided the issue in following way:-
œ13. First and the foremost, we will deal with the question of non-compliance with Section 42(1) and (2) of the Act. It is necessary for us to examine whether factually there was a compliance or non-compliance of the said provisions and, if so, to what effect. In this regard, there can be no better evidence than the statement of Investigating Officer PW7 himself. PW7, Kaptan Singh in his statement while referring to the story of the prosecution as noticed above, does not state in examination-in-chief that he had made the report immediately upon receiving the secret information and had informed his senior officers.
14. In his examination-in-chief, such statement is conspicuous by its very absence. On the contra, in his cross-examination by the defence, he clearly admits as under:-
œ....the distance between the place of secret information and the place of recovery is about 1½ kilometre. Secret information was not reduced into the writing so no copy of the same was sent to the higher officer. I did not ask any witness of the public in writing to join the raiding party?.
15. The learned Trial Court in para 34 of its judgment clearly recorded that admittedly in the present case, the secret information was received against the accused. The Investigation Officer did not reduce the secret information in writing nor did he send the same to the higher officer or to the police station for registration of the case. However, stating that if this was done, there was possibility that the accused escaped, the trial court observed that if the Investigating Officer did not reduce into writing the secret information and sent the same to the superior officer, then in light of the given circumstances, it could not be said that any prejudice was caused to the accused.
16. We are unable to contribute to this interpretation and approach of the Trial Court and the High Court in relation to the provisions of sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act. The language of Section 42 does not admit any ambiguity. These are penal provisions and prescribe very harsh punishments for the offender. The question of substantial compliance of these provisions would amount to misconstruction of these relevant provisions. It is a settled canon of interpretation that the penal provisions, particularly with harsher punishments and with clear intendment of the legislature for definite compliance, ought to be construed strictly. The doctrine of substantial compliance cannot be called in aid to answer such interpretations. The principle of substantial compliance would be applicable in the cases where the language of the provision strictly or by necessary implication admits of such compliance.
17. In our considered view, this controversy is no more res integra and stands answered by a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh (supra). In that judgment, the Court in the very opening paragraph noticed that in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [(2000) 2 SCC 513], a three Judge Bench of the Court had held that compliance of Section 42 of the Act is mandatory and failure to take down the information in writing and sending the report forthwith to the immediate officer superior may cause prejudice to the accused. However, in the case of Sajan Abraham (supra), again a Bench of three Judges, held that this provision is not mandatory and substantial compliance was sufficient. The Court noticed, if there is total non-compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, it would adversely affect the prosecution case and to that extent, it is mandatory. But, if there is delay, whether it was undue or whether the same was explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case. The Court in paragraph 35 of the judgment held as under:-
35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.
18. Following the above judgment, a Bench of this Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra) took the view that total non-compliance of the provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act is impermissible but delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation for delay can, however, be countenanced.
19. The provisions like Section 42 or 50 of the Act are the provisions which require exact and definite compliance as opposed to the principle of substantial compliance. The Constitution Bench in the case of Karnail Singh (supra) carved out an exception which is not founded on substantial compliance but is based upon delayed compliance duly explained by definite and reliable grounds.
20. While dealing with the requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and keeping in mind its mandatory nature, a Bench of this Court held that there is need for exact compliance without any attribute to the element of prejudice, where there is an admitted or apparent non-compliance. The Court in the case of State of Delhi v. Ram Avtar alias Rama [(2011) 12 SCC 207], held as under:-
26. The High Court while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh and rejecting the theory of substantial compliance, which had been suggested in Joseph Fernandez, found that the intimation did not satisfy the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The Court reasoned that the expression œduly? used in Section 50 of the Act connotes not œsubstantial? but œexact and definite compliance?. Vide Ext. PW 6/A, the appellant was informed that a gazetted officer or a Magistrate could be arranged for taking his search, if he so required. This intimation could not be treated as communicating to the appellant that he had a right under law, to be searched before the said authorities. As the recovery itself was illegal, the conviction and sentence has to be set aside.
27. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused, compliance therewith should be strictly construed. As already held by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the theory of œsubstantial compliance? would not be applicable to such situations, particularly where the punishment provided is very harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudice against the suspect. The safeguard cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be construed in its proper perspective, compliance therewith must be ensured. The law has provided a right to the accused, and makes it obligatory upon the officer concerned to make the suspect aware of such right. The officer had prior information of the raid; thus, he was expected to be prepared for carrying out his duties of investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. While discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that information regarding the existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. If such information is incomplete and ambiguous, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would cause prejudice to the accused, and, therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial.
21. When there is total and definite non-compliance of such statutory provisions, the question of prejudice loses its significance. It will per se amount to prejudice. These are indefeasible, protective rights vested in a suspect and are incapable of being shadowed on the strength of substantial compliance.
22. The purpose of these provisions is to provide due protection to a suspect against false implication and ensure that these provisions are strictly complied with to further the legislative mandate of fair investigation and trial. It will be opposed to the very essence of criminal jurisprudence, if upon apparent and admitted non-compliance of these provisions in their entirety, the Court has to examine the element of prejudice. The element of prejudice is of some significance where provisions are directory or are of the nature admitting substantial compliance. Where the duty is absolute, the element of prejudice would be of least relevancy. Absolute duty coupled with strict compliance would rule out the element of prejudice where there is total non-compliance of the provision?.
15. The aforesaid issues has again been considered in Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2013 CRI. L. J. page 841:-
œ13. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to at what stage and by what time the authorized officer should comply with the requirements of Section 42 of the Act and report the matter to his superior officer. For this purpose, we must refer to Section 42 of the NDPS Act at his stage :
"Section 42-Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation-(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,--
(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."
14. Section 42 can be divided into two different parts. First is the power of entry, search seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization as contemplated under sub-section (1) of the said section. Second is reporting of the information reduced to writing to a higher officer in consonance with sub-section (2) of that section. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 had been a matter of judicial interpretation as well as of legislative concern in the past. Sub-section (2) was amended by the Parliament vide Act 9 of 2001 with effect from 2nd October, 2001. After amendment of this sub-section, the words 'forthwith' stood amended by the words 'within 72 hours'. In other words, whatever ambiguity or leverage was provided for under the unamended provision, was clarified and resultantly, absolute certainty was brought in by binding the officer concerned to send the intimation to the superior officers within 72 hours from the time of receipt of information. The amendment is suggestive of the legislative intent that information must reach the superior officer not only expeditiously or forthwith but definitely within the time contemplated under the amended sub-section (2) of Section 42. This, in our opinion, provides a greater certainty to the time in which the action should be taken as well as renders the safeguards provided to an accused more meaningful. In the present case, the information was received by the empowered officer on 4th February, 1994 when the unamended provision was in force. The law as it existed at the time of commission of the offence would be the law which will govern the rights and obligations of the parties under the NDPS Act. In the case of Basheer @ N.P. Basheer v. State of Kerala [(2004) 3 SCC 609] wherein this Court was concerned with the Amending Act 9 of 2001 of the NDPS Act, the Court took the view that application of the Amending Act, where the trial had been concluded and appeal was pending on the date of its commencement and where the accused had been tried and convicted, would not apply. The contention that trials were not held in accordance with law was not sustainable for the reason that there could be direct and deleterious consequences of applying the amending provisions of the Act to trials which had concluded in which appeals were filed prior to the date of Amending Act coming into force. This would certainly defeat the first object of avoiding delay in such trials. Another Bench of this Court in the case of Jawahar Singh @ Bhagat Ji. v. State of GNCT of Delhi [(2009) 6 SCC 490], while dealing with the amendments of Section 21 of the NDPS Act, the Court took the view that amendments made by Act 9 of 2001 could not be given retrospective effect as if it was so given, it would warrant a retrial which is not the object of the Act. The Court held as under :
"9. It is now beyond any doubt or dispute that the quantum of punishment to be inflicted on an accused upon recording a judgment of conviction would be as per the law which was prevailing at the relevant time. As on the date of commission of the offence and/or the date of conviction, there was no distinction between a small quantity and a commercial quantity, question of infliction of a lesser sentence by reason of the provisions of the amending Act, in our considered opinion, would not arise.
10. It is also a well-settled principle of law that a substantive provision unless specifically provided for or otherwise intended by Parliament should be held to have a prospective operation. One of the facets of the rule of law is also that all statutes should be presumed to have a prospective operation only."
15. No law can be interpreted so as to frustrate the very basic rule of law. It is a settled principle of interpretation of criminal jurisprudence that the provisions have to be strictly construed and cannot be given a retrospective effect unless legislative intent and expression is clear beyond ambiguity. The amendments to criminal law would not intend that there should be undue delay in disposal of criminal trials or there should be retrial just because the law has changed. Such an approach would be contrary to the doctrine of finality as well as avoidance of delay in conclusion of criminal trial.
16. Still, reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2009) 14 SCC 201], wherein this Court was dealing with the question as to what would be the law applicable for imposition of a sentence irrespective of when the trial was concluded with reference to Article 21 of the Act and provision of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as applicable and amended by H.P. Act 8 of 1995 where punishment was enhanced and minimum sentenced was provided. The Court held that it is trite law that the sentence imposable on the date of commission of the offence has to determine the sentence imposable on completion of trial;.
17. Even in the case of Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [(2009) 13 SCC 211], this Court stated with reference to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as amended by Act of 2006) that the relevant date for applicability of the Act so as the age of the accused, who claims to be a child, is concerned, is the date of occurrence and not the date of trial.
18. In the present case, the occurrence was of 4th February, 1994. The Trial of the accused concluded by judgment of conviction dated 4th July, 1998. Thus, it will be the unamended Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act that would govern the present case. The provisions of Section 42 are intended to provide protection as well as lay down a procedure which is mandatory and should be followed positively by the Investigating Officer. He is obliged to furnish the information to his superior officer forthwith. That obviously means without any delay. But there could be cases where the Investigating Officer instantaneously, for special reasons to be explained in writing, is not able to reduce the information into writing and send the said information to his superior officers but could do it later and preferably prior to recovery. Compliance of Section 42 is mandatory and there cannot be an escape from its strict compliance.
19. This question is no more res integra and stands fully answered by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [(2009) 8 SCC 539]. The Constitution Bench had the occasion to consider the conflict between the two judgments i.e. in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [(2000) 2 SCC 513] and Sajan Abraham (supra) and held as under:-
"35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001."
16. Therefore, presence of confessional statement will have no active role to play in case there happens to be violation of mandatory provisions of law. The decision referred by learned Special Counsel relating to Khet Singhs Case as well as Kanhaiya Singhs case, the aforesaid issues were not under consideration. Moreover, after Kartar Singhs case decided by Constitution Bench no more controversy exists.
17. Now, coming to facts of the case, from minute observation of complaint petition the following salient feature are visible:-
(a) It did not disclose whether confidential information was recorded and superior officer was informed under Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
(b) Whether after arrest, institution of the case, superior officer was informed under Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
(c) Whether sampling was done after taking out Ganja from all the 52 packets.
(d) It did not disclose where Ganja was kept subsequently.
(e) On which date sample was sent, received at FSL Kolkata.
(f) Regarding destruction report because material has not been produced in Court.
The aforesaid theme would play an important role in the background of the fact that the date of occurrence happens to be 18.03.2004 while after completing enquiry/ investigation complaint was filed after six months on 14.09.2004. In its continuity, the previous order sheet of the lower court record has also been gone through. From perusal of which, it is apparent that no permission was taken from the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge with regard to transmission of sample for chemical examination. In likewise manner Exhibit-2, 2/1 was not produced at the time of production of accused.
18. During course of evidence, PW-1 had not spoken with regard to compliance of any of the mandatory provision. During cross-examination at para-14, he had stated that he received confidential information at his residential phone, whereupon he rushed to office, recorded the relevant information and informed the superior officer, but aforesaid disclosure is not at all found to be supported with any documentary evidence. PW-2 had also not spoken on that very score. In likewise manner, PW-3, Inspector had deposed.
19. It is also an admitted fact that PW-2 and PW-3 had not spoken regarding sampling while PW-1 had not spoken whether from all the 52 packets Ganja was taken out and sampling was done. In likewise manner, none of the PWs have spoken with regard to sealing of the aforesaid Ganja. Furthermore, they also happen to be silent with regard to compliance of Section 52(A) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Moreover, material exhibit has not been produced during course of trial.
20. Now, coming to mode of search and seizure, PW-1 had stated at para-11 that the vehicle was stopped near hotel. He had further stated at para-12 that he had not mentioned the time in the seizure list. He had further stated that he is unable to disclose the boundary of the place where seizure was made. In para-16, he had stated that just after signaling the container stopped. In para-17, he had stated that the driver and Khalasi did not attempt to escape. In para-18, he had stated that seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence. Interrogatory statement of both the accused was taken in his presence as well as in presence of independent witness. PW-2 at para-9 had stated that none of the accused had protested over opening of container. None of the accused had tried to run away. They came along with accused at their office where seizure list was prepared, who were witnesses he cannot say. Accused has made statement in his presence. PW-3 had stated that they have signaled to stop the container, but the driver did not stop the vehicle and on account thereof, was forced to stop the vehicle by overtaking. Thereafter, the vehicle was searched and 52 packets of Ganja were seized for which seizure list was prepared. Sample was also taken out. PW-4 in para-2 had stated that on the relevant time the officer came, signaled to stop whereupon the container stopped. On search, 52 packets of Ganja was seized. The officer also took statement of driver and Khalasi in his presence over which he had put his signature.
21. Apart from having inconsistency regarding mode of arrest as well as with regard to place where seizure list was prepared, there also happens to be inconsistency over preparation of sampling.
22. In the background of aforesaid factual position as well as taking into account the deficiency persisting on the prosecution case with regard to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the law, it looks hazardous to concur with the finding recorded by the learned lower court. Consequent thereupon, the judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Appeal is allowed. Both the appellants above named are under custody, hence are directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. I appreciate proper assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae.
23. Times without number, it has been observed as well as is being perceived that mere recovery, search and seizure of Narcotic as well as Psychotropic substance from the possession of accused is not only the obligation of the different authority rather having the accused punished should be the prime aim and for that they should be well versed with the requirement of law. It is unfortunate that either intentionally or due to ignorance of law or callous to the accused or casual manner of investigation of cases falling under N.D.P.S. Act are being made and it happens to be painful event wherein on account of fallacy on the part of the prosecution, the accused are acquitted. Let a copy of this judgment be served upon the prosecuting agency who would perceive the awe of court while acquitting the accused on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law. It is expected, henceforth, the prosecuting agency would be more sensitized and further expecting full proof investigation with proper compliance of mandatory provision so that the real culprit should not get a slipshod.