| CITATION | (2009) 8 SCC 539 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 29th July, 2009 |
| COURT | The Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Karnail Singh |
| RESPONDENT | State of Haryana |
| BENCH | K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., R.V. Raveendran, Devinder Kumar Jain, P. Sathasivam and J.M.Panchal, JJ. |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana pertains to the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The central issue in this case revolves around the alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which relates to the power of entry, search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization.
The appellant, Karnail Singh, raised objections regarding the legality of the search and seizure conducted by the police, contending that there was a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 42. Specifically, the appellant argued that the failure to record information in writing and send a report to the immediate official superior as required by the Act rendered the search and seizure illegal, thereby impacting the prosecution’s case.
On the other hand, the State of Haryana argued that the non-compliance with Section 42 should not have severe consequences and that the recovery of contraband from the vehicle was not disputed by the accused. The case delves into the balance between the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and the need for strict compliance to prevent any miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court of India’s decision in this case sheds light on the significance of adhering to the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act to ensure a fair trial and uphold the rule of law in matters concerning drug-related offenses.
FACTS
In the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, the appellant was found in possession of a manufactured drug called “Tidigesic” and three syringes for injecting the same near Blue Tronics Junction at Palluruthy. The Head Constable, along with two other Constables, received information that a person was selling injectable narcotic drugs at the mentioned location. They informed Sub-Inspector of Police, PW 5, who was on patrol duty with his police party. Subsequently, PW 5, along with his team, proceeded to the scene and apprehended the accused with the contraband items in his possession. The appellant was arrested, and a charge-sheet was filed against him.
ISSUES RAISED
The main issue raised in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana was the alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant contended that there was a violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as the information regarding the accused selling narcotic drugs was not recorded in writing and sent to the immediate official superior as required by the Act. The appellant argued that this non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act rendered the search and seizure illegal, thereby affecting the prosecution’s case.
CONTENTIONS BY THE STATE OF HARYANA
On the other hand, the State of Haryana argued that the non-compliance with Section 42 should not have severe consequences, similar to the non-compliance with the conditions prescribed in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The State contended that since the accused did not dispute the recovery of the contraband from the vehicle, the non-recording of information should not impact the case. However, the Court did not agree with this contention and emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act to ensure fair proceedings.
JUDGMENT
In the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India examined the issue of non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding the recording of information in writing and sending a report to the immediate official superior. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 42 and the importance of strict compliance with its provisions.
The Court held that the failure to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act does cause prejudice to the accused and affects the prosecution’s case. It was noted that while substantial compliance with the provisions may be sufficient, strict adherence to the requirements of the Act is essential to ensure a fair trial and prevent the accused from escaping justice.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act in the case of Karnail Singh was a violation of the law and had prejudiced the accused. The Court upheld the importance of following the statutory provisions strictly to maintain the integrity of the legal process and ensure justice is served.
CONCLUSION
In the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court of India concluded that the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) regarding the recording of information in writing and sending a report to the immediate official superior had prejudiced the accused and affected the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act to ensure a fair trial and prevent any escape of the accused from justice.
The Court’s decision underscored the significance of following the statutory requirements diligently in drug-related cases to uphold the integrity of the legal process and safeguard the rights of the accused. While acknowledging the possibility of substantial compliance in certain situations, the Court reiterated the necessity of adhering to the provisions of the Act to maintain the rule of law and ensure that justice is served.
REFERENCE
- Manupatra
- https://indiankanoon.org
This Article is written by Akanksha Mishra student of CPJ CHS & SoL, GGSIPU; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments