BOOTA SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 94

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Boota Singh v State of Haryana, it involves the trials and arrest of various individuals as they are accused for selling poppy straw in the vehicles. The police conducted a raid and apprehended three individuals and recovered a large amount of poppy straw.These individuals were charged and tried under the NDPS Act which has a stricter act for searches and seizure,and two of them were convicted and were sentenced to imprisonment of 10 years.The convocation was made because of the testimony of 4 witnesses which includes the investigating officer as well as the documentary evidences.The appellant stated that the police did not follow the right procedure when they were searching the car which affected the case against them and also the vehicle was belonged to one of the accused name Gurdeep Singh and was not a public transport and the NDPS Act that private vehicles are not considered as public.The issues of the cases were did the police’s mistake in following the law makes the guilty verdict invalid?Do the police have the authority to seize the private vehicle in public place under section 42 of NDPS Act?.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1.On January 28, 2002, a police team led by Sub-Inspector Nand Lal received a tip that some people were selling illegal drugs (poppy straw) in a jeep with the registration number GUD-4997 on a dirt path near Rori-Jatana road. The police raided the location and found the accused sitting in the jeep with two bags containing a large quantity of poppy straw. The police arrested the accused, took samples of the drug, and seized the jeep and other items. The accused were later charged and brought to court. One of the accused, Major Singh, managed to escape at first but was arrested later.The court formally accused the appellants of a crime and explained the charges to them. The appellants denied the charges and chose to go to trial.

The prosecution (the side accusing the appellants) presented their case with:4 witnesses:

Inspector Nand Lal (who searched the appellants)
ASI Jaswant Singh (who was present during the search)
Kuldeep Singh (who kept the evidence safe)
Constable Gurjit Singh (who sent the evidence to the lab for testing)

Documents and other evidence to support their version of events.

2. Inspector Nand Lal, the investigating officer, testified in court about the events on January 28, 2002. He said that he was patrolling with his team when he received a tip about a drug deal happening in a jeep (GUD-4997) on a dirt path near Rori-Jatana road. He tried to get help from two people passing by, but they refused.He then led a raid on the jeep, and three accused (Boota Singh, Gurdeep Singh, and Gurmahender Singh) were caught sitting on two bags containing poppy straw. One accused, Major Singh, escaped. The inspector asked the accused if they wanted to be searched in front of a senior officer or a judge, but they declined and trusted the police.During cross-examination, the inspector admitted:

He didn’t write down the tip he received.
His police radio wasn’t working at the time.
He didn’t get a search warrant before searching the jeep at night.
He didn’t explain in his police file why he didn’t get a search warrant

3.The Trial Court considered the evidence and:Found Major Singh not guilty and also found Boota Singh, Gurdeep Singh, and Gurmohinder Singh guilty under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.So they were sentenced them to 10 years in prison and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (with an additional 2 years in prison if they couldn’t pay the fine).

The court also addressed the argument made by the defence lawyers that the police didn’t follow the correct procedure (Section 42 of the NDPS Act) when searching the accused. The court said:

This argument wouldn’t work because the drugs were found in a public place (on a road, in a jeep) and not in a private building or house.
Therefore, Section 43 of the NDPS Act applies (which allows for searches in public places) and not Section 42 (which requires specific procedures for searches in private areas).

The accused who were found guilty (Boota Singh, Gurdeep Singh, and Gurmohinder Singh) were not satisfied with the decision, so they appealed to a higher court (the High Court) to review the decision.

ISSUES RAISED

Didn’t following the rules in Section 42 of the NDPS Act make the conviction (guilty verdict) invalid?
Does the seizure of a private vehicle in a public place fall under the rules of Section 42 of the NDPS Act?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The police seized a private vehicle (not a public vehicle like a bus).
The police officer didn’t write down the secret tip they received, which they were supposed to do.
Because of this, the case falls under Section 42 of the NDPS Act (which has specific rules for searches in private areas).
Since the police didn’t follow these rules, the appellants (accused) should be found not guilty (acquitted).
As per the decision of Karnail Singh v State of Haryana and Jagraj Singh Alias Hansa- – Based on that precedent, the relevant section of the NDPS Act that applies is Section 42, not Section 43. Section 42 deals with searches and seizures in private areas, and the police did not follow the required procedure. It is agreed upon by all parties that the police did not comply with the requirements of Section 42 at all.Therefore, the conviction based on the seizure of the drug from the private vehicle is invalid.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

They agreed with the High Court’s decision and said that the case falls under Section 43 of the NDPS Act (which deals with searches in public places). However, they also admitted that the vehicle in question was not a public vehicle (like a bus or taxi), but a private one.

JUDGEMENT

– The Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) reviewed previous judgments and decided that:

Not following the rules in Sections 42 and 50 is not acceptable. Following the rules late, with a good explanation, is okay. In this case, the police didn’t follow the rules in Section 42 at all.The court agreed with the High Court’s decision to overturn the conviction because: The police didn’t follow the rules for searching a private vehicle (Section 42).The search was not done legally, so the evidence found can’t be used against the accused.
The evidence shows that the vehicle belonged to one of the accused, Gurdeep Singh, and was not a public vehicle like a bus or taxi.The vehicle’s registration certificate also confirms it was not a public transport vehicle. According to the law (Section 43 of the NDPS Act), a private vehicle is not considered a public place. The Supreme Court’s previous decision in Jagraj Singh alias Hansa established that in such cases, Section 42 of the NDPS Act applies, not Section 43. It is agreed upon by all parties that the police did not follow the requirements of Section 42 at all.
The Supreme Court’s previous decisions in Karnail Singh and Jagraj Singh alias Hansa clearly state that: Not following the rules in Section 42 at all is not acceptable.

While there may be some flexibility in certain situations, total non-compliance is not allowed.

In this case, the lower courts made a mistake by rejecting the appellants’ arguments. Therefore, the Supreme Court: Overturns the High Court’s decision, Acquits (frees) the appellants from the charges, Orders their release, unless they are needed in connection with another crime.

ANALYSIS

The appellants were accused of selling poppy straw (a drug) and were convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.The police seized the drug from a private vehicle, but did not follow the proper procedure under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which deals with searches and seizures in private areas.The appellants argued that the non-compliance with Section 42 renders the conviction invalid.
The High Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of the appellants, stating that total non-compliance with Section 42 is impermissible.The Supreme Court held that the case falls under Section 42, not Section 43 (which deals with searches in public places), since the vehicle was a private one.The court ordered the appellants to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with another offence.

Key points:

The police’s failure to follow proper procedure under Section 42 was crucial in overturning the conviction.The distinction between Section 42 (private areas) and Section 43 (public places) was critical in this case.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in drug-related cases.The court confirmed that the vehicle belonged to Gurdeep Singh and was not a public vehicle like a bus or taxi.The court referred to the previous case of Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, which established that a private vehicle is not considered a public place under Section 43.Therefore, the relevant section in this case is Section 42, not Section 43.
The police officer admitted that they did not follow the requirements of Section 42 at all. The court has previously decided in Karnail Singh and Jagraj Singh alias Hansa that not following the rules in Section 42 is not acceptable.So, the court ruled in favour of the accused, stating that the evidence found in the vehicle is invalid due to the police’s non-compliance with Section 42.

CONCLUSION

The court concluded in the favour of the accused stating that failure in following the procedure was something crucial.The Supreme Court stressed the need to follow strict procedures in drug cases. It confirmed that the vehicle in question was a private vehicle belonging to Gurdeep Singh, not a public transport like a bus or taxi. The court drew on a previous ruling in Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, which clarified that private vehicles don’t qualify as public places under Section 43. As a result, the applicable section in this case is Section 42, not Section 43.The police officer conceded that they failed to comply with the requirements of Section 42 entirely. The court had already established in the cases of Karnail Singh and Jagraj Singh alias Hansa that non-compliance with Section 42 is not permissible. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the accused, deeming the evidence obtained from the vehicle inadmissible due to the police’s complete disregard for the procedures outlined in Section 42.

REFERENCES

Written by Mugdha Chaturvedi an intern under legal vdihiya.

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.