Complete non-compliance with procedure laid in section 42 of the NDPS is impermissible
Boota Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2021]
Brief: In the instant appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside conviction and held that private vehicle on public way not a public place under section 43 of the NDPS Act. The instant case falls under section 42 of the Act but no compliance has been made to the procedure prescribed therein.
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
12. The evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to accused Gurdeep Singh. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle. The explanation to Section 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43 of the NDPS Act. On the strength of the decision of this Court in Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, the relevant provision would not be Section 43 of the NDPS Act but the case would come under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
13. It is an admitted position that there was total non-compliance of the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
14. The decision of this Court in Karnail Singh as followed in Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, is absolutely clear. Total non-compliance of Section 42 is impermissible. The rigor of Section 42 may get lessened in situations dealt with in the conclusion drawn by this Court in Karnail Singh but in no case, total non-compliance of Section 42 can be accepted.
15. In the circumstances, the courts below fell in error in rejecting the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the view taken by the High Court and acquit the appellants of the charge levelled against them. The appellants be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence.