Compliance With Section 42 NDPS Act Mandatory; Ruqa Deemed Sufficient: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction in NDPS Act Case
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.
Brief on the Legal Point of the Judgment
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.
Facts and Issues in the Judgment
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.
Detailed Court Assessment on Legal Points
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
