The Madras High Court reaffirmed that total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is impermissible, even for searches involving private vehicles and individual possession; mere formalities do not suffice—strict compliance is mandatory as per Supreme Court precedent, and convictions based solely on tainted or uncorroborated police evidence cannot be sustained. This judgment upholds binding precedent, clarifies the application of Section 42, and sets practical boundaries for future NDPS prosecutions in Tamil Nadu.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRL A(MD)/913/2023 of Ramesh Vs The Inspector of Police |
| CNR | HCMD011074522023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-10-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan |
| Court | Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) |
| Bench | Single Judge: K.K. Ramakrishnan J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent on Section 42 NDPS Act compliance |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction can be sustained when there is total non-compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act and reliance solely on tainted/unreliable police evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The accused was allegedly caught with 24 kg of ganja following tip-off to police (P.W.1), who conducted search and seizure from a private vehicle, submitted report to his superior (P.W.2), and filed charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. At trial, defence produced evidence D.W.1 and D.W.2 of P.W.1 demanding and receiving bribe; trial court nevertheless convicted accused. On appeal, High Court found fatal non-compliance with Section 42 and unreliable police evidence due to established allegations of bribery and lack of corroboration, acquitting the appellant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts (especially on Section 42 NDPS Act compliance), and Supreme Court (as instance of application of precedent) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates that total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (failure to properly record and transmit secret information to superior) is fatal to the prosecution, irrespective of recovery.
- Courts will not treat mere formal or mechanical compliance as sufficient; evidence on record must prove strict observance.
- Conviction cannot be sustained on tainted, uncorroborated police evidence, especially where bribery allegations against investigating officers are substantiated.
- The presence of bribe considerations and flawed procedure heighten the court’s scrutiny and bolster defence under NDPS Act.
- Defence counsel can robustly challenge NDPS prosecutions where procedural mandates are violated or police witnesses are unreliable.
- Prosecution must ensure thorough, credible, and corroborated police evidence and impeccable compliance with statutory safeguards.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first outlined the principles regarding Section 42 NDPS Act compliance, citing in detail Supreme Court authorities (Karnail Singh, Darshan Singh, Boota Singh).
- Section 42 requires the recording in writing of secret information and its immediate transmission to a superior officer; this is distinct from registering an FIR or other procedural steps under CrPC.
- Total non-compliance—absence of proof that such recording and transmittal occurred—cannot be excused, distinguished from delayed compliance with adequate reason.
- Applying these principles, the Court assessed trial evidence: The police officer (P.W.1) claimed to have recorded the secret information and sent it to his superior (P.W.2) via a constable, but on scrutiny, Court found timings/distance implausible (distance of 48 km allegedly covered in 35 minutes and absence of independent corroboration).
- The prosecution did not produce the constable or documentary proof to support timely compliance with Section 42, making the process questionable.
- Independent witnesses from the police (other than P.W.1) were not examined, despite serious allegations of bribery; defence proved, via D.W.1 and D.W.2 and supporting documentation, that P.W.1 received bribe from the accused’s relatives—a fact established in magisterial inquiry.
- Citing Vadivel Thevar, the Court held conviction cannot rest on unreliable or contradictory evidence, especially when sole witness’s testimony is suspect.
- The cumulative procedural and evidentiary lapses led the Court to acquit the accused and direct inquiry against the erring police officer.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Asserted that P.W.1 fabricated the case out of vindictiveness after the accused refused to pay demanded bribe; supported by D.W.1 and D.W.2’s testimony and evidence of money transfer.
- Questioned the authenticity and correctness of compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act.
- Highlighted inconsistencies between P.W.1’s testimony and documentary record.
- Contended that the alleged contraband was not properly established to fall within the statutory definition for the charged offence (claimed only leaves and seeds were seized, not “flowering or fruiting top”).
- Raised procedural lapses (separate weighing of packing material absent).
- Challenged conviction based essentially on P.W.1’s compromised testimony.
Respondent (State):
- Maintained that Section 42 was duly complied with; P.W.1 sent intimation, and P.W.2 confirmed receipt.
- Report under Section 57 was sent promptly; all procedural documents reached court on remand day.
- Bribery allegations said to be immaterial—recovery of contraband was clear.
- Chemist’s report allegedly confirmed ‘cannabis’ presence.
Factual Background
The appellant was alleged to have been intercepted at 4:45 am on 13.05.2021 by police, based on secret information noted by P.W.1 and reportedly informed to a superior. Upon search, 24 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered from a sack carried on a two-wheeler. FIR was registered for offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The accused contested the veracity of the case, alleging it was fabricated after he refused to pay a bribe. At trial, the defence produced evidence that the investigating officer had indeed received bribe money, a fact also acknowledged in a magisterial inquiry. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, leading to this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 42 of the NDPS Act was extensively analysed: the requirement for written recording of secret information and its immediate transmission to superior officers was held to be mandatory, and this step is separate from general FIR registration or usual criminal procedure protocols.
- Supreme Court case law was cited for both “literal” and “substantive” (not merely formal) compliance.
- The Court found the procedural safeguards under Section 42 seek to prevent misuse and wrongful implication under harsh NDPS provisions.
- Also referenced Section 50 (search procedures), Section 57 (reporting after seizure), and discussed the definition of “ganja” under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), noting defence’s unsuccessful attempt to argue below commercial quantity.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed the Director General of Police, Chennai, to conduct an independent inquiry into the investigating officer (P.W.1), based on credible findings of bribery, with a timeline and procedural safeguards.
- The judgment directly ties criminal trial outcome to independent findings of procedural misconduct, providing for cross-referenced accountability in both criminal and departmental spheres.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.