Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Compliance With Section 42 NDPS Act Mandatory; Ruqa Deemed Sufficient: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction in NDPS Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided over by Justice Pankaj Jain, dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of Avtar Singh @ Jagtar Singh @ Jagga under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. The judgment, delivered on 1st April 2024, meticulously evaluated the compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

The crux of the legal debate revolved around the mandatory compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The section mandates recording and communicating the information of narcotic activities to the immediate superior officer before conducting a search and seizure. The appellant’s counsel argued that the procedure was not adequately followed, contending that the communication, termed ‘Ruqa’, did not satisfy the requirement of Section 42.

Avtar Singh was apprehended on 23rd March 2019 with 27 grams of heroin. The arrest followed a ‘Ruqa’ sent by ASI Faqir Singh to the police station, post receiving confidential information about Singh’s illicit activities. The appellant was subsequently convicted for the offense under Section 21(b) read with Section 31 of the NDPS Act. The primary issue was whether the ‘Ruqa’ met the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

Compliance with Section 42: The court, referencing various precedents, including Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 42 compliance. It was held that recording of information and its immediate communication to a superior officer is imperative.

Validity of Ruqa: The court deemed the ‘Ruqa’ as a valid form of compliance. Justice Jain observed that the nomenclature of the communication does not detract from its legality. It was held that the ‘Ruqa’ effectively met the Section 42 mandate.

Search and Seizure Procedure: The court confirmed that the search was conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, adhering to the Section 50 NDPS Act requirement. Furthermore, the prior conviction of the appellant under the NDPS Act reinforced the legitimacy of the search and subsequent arrest.

Decision The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, affirming that both the mandates of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were complied with. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that there was no merit in challenging the procedures followed in the seizure and arrest of Avtar Singh.

Date of Decision: 1st April 2024

Avtar Singh @ Jagtar Singh @ Jagga Vs. State of Punjab

Similar News