Madras High Court affirms that failure to strictly comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and to ensure procedural fairness when the accused do not understand the trial language, invalidates conviction and vitiates the trial. This judgment reinforces and applies binding Supreme Court precedent, serving as a binding authority for subordinate courts and persuasive value for other High Courts on compliance with statutory and linguistic safeguards in criminal trials under the NDPS Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL A(MD)/117/2021 of Sajan Nath Vs The Inspector of Police |
| CNR | HCMD010195502021 |
| Date of Registration | 05-03-2021 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Court | Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) |
| Bench | THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents including State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), CrPC |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that strict compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates the trial. The prosecution’s failure to produce credible evidence regarding the communication of secret information and presence of the translator at the scene made the recovery and investigation procedures doubtful. The lack of procedural safeguards for accused who did not understand Tamil violated their right to a fair trial, as the material documents and witness depositions were not translated or explained to them in a language they understood. Acquittal was granted due to the prosecution’s failure to prove foundational facts of recovery and compliance with mandatory procedure. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Accused, residents of Rajasthan, were allegedly caught transporting 50kg of ganja by police in Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, after secret information was received. Recovery was conducted with the purported help of a translator (husband of the Investigating Officer), whose presence and role was challenged. All proceedings were in Tamil, a language not understood by the accused, and the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act or the presence of the translator during recovery. The trial resulted in conviction, which was appealed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court on issues regarding language rights of accused and compliance with NDPS Act procedures |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that strict compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act is mandatory; any lapse vitiates prosecution.
- Clarifies that all procedural documents, including witness depositions and Section 313 CrPC examinations, must be explained in the accused’s language.
- Recovery conducted in presence of an unreliable or unproven ‘chance’ translator/witness will fall short of evidentiary standards.
- Non-examination of available public/independent witnesses to recovery significantly weakens prosecution, especially in NDPS trials.
- Proceedings via video conference, including Section 313 CrPC, require clear recording and interpretation in a language understood by the accused; mere presence of a translator without documented translation is insufficient.
- Defense practitioners can use this authority to challenge NDPS trials where statutory and language safeguards are not strictly followed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court scrutinized compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act, referencing State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh and Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, and found a complete lack of documentary evidence confirming timely intimation to superior officers.
- It held that, as per binding precedent, non-compliance with Section 42 vitiates the entire prosecution under the NDPS Act.
- The role of the alleged translator (PW.2) was found unreliable; his presence at the scene was unproven and not corroborated by independent evidence, making the recovery suspect.
- The court cited jurisprudence on the caution required in accepting ‘chance’ witnesses, and the necessity of independent witnesses when available.
- It emphasised the fundamental right of an accused to understand charges/evidence and participate fully in their trial; found that material documents and evidence in Tamil were not adequately explained to the Hindi/Rajasthani-speaking accused.
- The court recognised that Section 313 CrPC examination requires questions to be put in a language understood by the accused, and observed that mere summary or informal translation without record is not compliance.
- As key statutory requirements and fair trial standards were violated, the conviction was set aside and the accused acquitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Accused did not know Tamil; all documents and proceedings conducted in Tamil without proper translation or interpretation, violating their right to a fair trial.
- The translator’s (PW.2) presence at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and was not credibly proved.
- PW.2 was the husband of the Investigating Officer (PW.4), casting further doubt on impartiality.
- Non-examination of independent witnesses at a busy public road makes the recovery story manifestly weak.
- Failure to comply with Section 57 NDPS Act and other procedural lapses.
- No evidence that documents or proceedings under Section 313 CrPC were explained in a language understood by the accused.
- Vehicle owner not prosecuted, and absence of charge under Section 25 NDPS Act makes the prosecution incomplete.
Respondent (State)
- Translator was available and acted during recovery and court proceedings; P.W.2’s evidence supports this.
- Section 313 CrPC proceedings were conducted and interpreted, and counsel for the accused was present.
- Strict compliance with Section 42 was observed, evidenced by Ex.P1.
- Absence of express record of translation does not invalidate recovery or investigation, given oral confirmations.
Factual Background
The accused, both natives of Rajasthan and unfamiliar with the Tamil language, were apprehended for allegedly transporting 50 kilograms of ganja in a vehicle in Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, based on secret information received by the police. The recovery operation was conducted near a busy road, purportedly witnessed and interpreted by P.W.2 (the husband of the Investigating Officer). At trial, all documents and proceedings were in Tamil, and the accused’s understanding of the proceedings was challenged. The trial court convicted them under the NDPS Act, leading to this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 42 NDPS Act (procedure for receiving and acting upon information): The court held that strict compliance is mandatory and that the prosecution failed to prove such compliance, as required by Supreme Court precedent.
- Section 50 NDPS Act (right to be searched in presence of Magistrate/Gazetted officer): Questionable as to whether this safeguard, including the language requirement, was imparted to the accused.
- Sections 54, 35 NDPS Act (presumptions as to possession and culpable mental state): Inapplicable when foundational facts of recovery are not proven.
- Section 313 CrPC (examination of accused): Noted that the law requires questions to be put in a language understood by the accused, and found non-compliance where questions/answers were in Tamil without proper translation.
- Other procedural sections (Section 57 NDPS Act): Submissions made regarding failure to comply.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were present; the judgment is solely by K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Procedural Innovations
- The court strictly scrutinized the need for translation and explicit recording of all procedural steps undertaken in a language comprehensible to the accused during all critical stages, including examination under Section 313 CrPC.
- Insistence on independent corroboration for presence of translators and witnesses in high-stakes criminal recovery situations under NDPS Act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision applies and reinforces established Supreme Court law regarding compliance with NDPS Act procedures and fair trial principles, especially regarding language comprehension.