CRL.A. 123 of 1997                                                                                                                             REPORTABLE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  123 OF 1997

 STATE OF KARNATAKA                            Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

     DONDUSA NAMASA BADDI                         Respondent(s)

O R D E R

 1.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This matter arises out of a search and seizure  

which took place on 3rd September, 1987.  This appeal  

was also adjourned time and again since the year 1997  

to await the decision of the Constitution Bench.  This  

decision has come and is reported as  Karnail Singh V.  

State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539.  The question posed  

was  as  to  the  effect  of  non-compliance  with  the  

provisions of Section 42 and in particular 42(2) of the  

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.  

This  matter  was  referred  to  the  Constitution  Bench  

owing to an apparent conflict between two judgments of  

this Court,  Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v.  State of

CRL.A. 123 of 1997                                                                                                                             REPORTABLE 2

Gujarat (2000) 2 SCC 513 wherein it was held by a three  

Judge Bench that compliance with Section 42(2) of the  

Act was mandatory and failure of the police officer to  

take down the information received by him in writing  

and  to  forthwith  send  a  report  to  his  immediate  

official superior would cause prejudice to the accused  

whereas in  Sajan Abraham v.  State of Kerala  (2001) 6  

SCC 692 which had also been decided by a three Judge  

Bench it had been held that substantial compliance with  

the  provisions  of  Section  42  was  sufficient.   In  

Karnail Singh's case, however,  the Constitution Bench  

has observed thus:

32.  Under  Section  42(2)  as  it  stood  prior to the amendment such empowered  officer who takes down any information  in  writing  or  records  the  grounds  under proviso to Section 42(1) should  forthwith send a copy thereof to his  immediate official superior.  If there  is  total  non-compliance  with  this  provision  the  same  would  adversely  affect  the  prosecution  case  and  to  that  extent  it  is  mandatory.  But  if  there is delay whether it was undue or  whether the same has been explained or  not,  will  be  a  question  of  fact  in  each case, it is to be concluded that  the  mandatory  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  Section  42  of  the  Act  non-compliance of which may vitiate a  trial has been restricted only to the  provision  of  sending  a  copy  of  the  information  written  down  by  the  empowered officer to immediateofficial  superior  and  not  to  any  other  condition of the Section.

CRL.A. 123 of 1997                                                                                                                             REPORTABLE 3

And again.   

35 (d) While total non-compliance with  requirements  of  sub-sections  (1)  and  (2)  of  section  42  is  impermissible,  delayed  compliance  with  satisfactory  explanation  about  the  delay  will  be  acceptable compliance with Section 42.  To illustrate, if any delay may result  in the accused escaping or the goods  or  evidence  being  destroyed  or  removed, not recording in writing the  information  received,  before  initiating  action,  or  non-sending  a  copy  of  such  information  to  the  official  superior  forthwith,  may  not  be treated as violation of Section 42.  But  if  the  information  was  received  when  the  police  officer  was  in  the  police station with sufficient time to  take action, and if the police officer  fails  to  record  in  writing  the  information received, or fails to send  a  copy  thereof,  to  the  official  superior, then it will be a suspicious  circumstance  being  a  clear  violation  of section 42 of the Act.  Similarly,  where  the  police  officer  does  not  record  the  information  at  all,  and  does not inform the official superior  at all, then also it will be a clear  violation  of  section  42  of  the  Act.  Whether  there  is  adequate  or  substantial compliance with section 42  or not is a question of fact to be  decided  in  each  case.  The  above  position  got  strengthened  with  the  amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of  2001.”

3. Concededly in the present matter, no information  

was  taken down in writing by the police officer or  

conveyed to the immediate police officer.  Shri A.K.  

Mishra,  the  learned  State  counsel  has,  however,

CRL.A. 123 of 1997                                                                                                                             REPORTABLE 4

forcefully argued that there was evidence in the oral  

evidence of P.W. 10, the investigating officer, that he  

had complied the formalities enjoined by Section 42(2).  

4. It  is  not  the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  

sufficient  time  was  not  available  to  record  the  

information  in  writing  and  send  it  to  the  superior  

officer and in the face of it, we are of the opinion  

that any oral evidence of the police officer will not  

be in compliance with the provisions of Section 42(2)  

of the Act.

5. We, accordingly, dismiss the State appeal.

       .......................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

   .........................J     [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI AUGUST  05, 2010.