The Madras High Court held that strict compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and total non-compliance is impermissible—even when a sole police witness testifies against the accused. The decision affirms established Supreme Court precedents and is binding on all subordinate courts handling NDPS cases.
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 |
| Bench | Single Bench (HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law—NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that total non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act cannot be condoned, and literal or substantial compliance, as laid down by the Supreme Court, is mandatory for the prosecution’s case to stand. When evidence of the sole police witness is in doubt—especially amid credible allegations of bribe and absence of corroboration—the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment closely follows and applies Supreme Court authority, emphasizing that mere technical compliance and FIR registration do not substitute for mandatory procedures. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court on Section 42 NDPS Act strict compliance; need for corroboration when sole witness is in doubt. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
P.W.1 (Sub-Inspector, NIB CID) alleged to have recovered 24 kg ganja from the accused based on a secret tip; gross allegations and evidence of bribe-taking by P.W.1; procedural doubts including non-examination of relevant witnesses and timing of transmission of secret information; sole reliance on P.W.1’s testimony with substantial doubt; prosecution failed to corroborate its case; credible defence evidence regarding bribe demand and likely foisting of false case. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (Madras High Court jurisdiction) concerning NDPS matters |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court when considering compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Judgment strongly reaffirms that strict compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act is mandatory; total non-compliance invalidates conviction.
- Failure to corroborate sole police witness’s testimony—particularly where there is credible evidence of misconduct or bribe demand—will result in acquittal.
- Court questions technical compliance with NDPS procedural requirements, especially regarding timely recording and communication of secret information.
- Prosecution must robustly establish compliance with procedural safeguards; mere registration of FIR and subsequent reports do not suffice.
- Lawyers should use this authority to challenge NDPS convictions where Section 42 compliance or corroborative evidence is lacking.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court analyzed compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, relying on settled principles from Supreme Court judgments, especially Karnail Singh, Darshan Singh, and Boota Singh.
- It emphasized that Section 42 requires that secret information be meticulously recorded in writing and communicated to immediate superiors before acting, unless exceptional, urgent circumstances arise—mere FIR registration or later information does not suffice.
- The facts revealed that the Secret Information Report transmission was not credible (impossible travel times, lack of corroboration), raising grave procedural doubts.
- The court noted inconsistencies in P.W.1’s testimony, absence of corroborative police or independent witnesses, and credible, proven allegations of bribe, relying on Vadivel Thevar for the principle that where sole witness’s testimony is tainted on crucial aspects, acquittal is warranted.
- Reiterated Mukesh Singh, stating that while not all non-examination of independent witnesses is fatal, credibility is undermined where even police witnesses (Head Constable Muralitharan) are not examined.
- In sum, the prosecution failed to prove compliance with Section 42 and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; thus, conviction could not stand.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- D.W.1 and D.W.2 testified regarding bribe demand and partial payment to P.W.1, leading to a false case.
- Enquiry conducted and action recommended against P.W.1.
- Section 42 compliance in doubt: report transmission route not corroborated (Head Constable Muralitharan not examined).
- Grave charge requires corroboration beyond tainted testimony.
- Inconsistencies between P.W.1’s evidence and documentary record.
- Contraband as per chemical report and physical description not strictly within Section 2 definitions.
- Packing materials not weighed separately; prosecution case unreliable.
Respondent (State):
- Ex.P.1 and other documents show P.W.1 sent intimation to superior (P.W.2); P.W.2 received the same.
- Section 57 report sent in time; all documents reached court promptly.
- Bribe allegations immaterial since contraband was recovered from accused.
- Chemical report confirms seized substance is “cannabis”; commercial quantity established.
- Sought confirmation of conviction based on prosecution evidence.
Factual Background
The accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 24 kg ganja while traveling on a two-wheeler after a secret tip-off to P.W.1 (Sub-Inspector, NIB CID, Theni). The police claimed to have arrested the accused after informing him of his rights and seizing the contraband. At trial, the accused presented defence witnesses and evidence indicating P.W.1 had demanded a bribe, and upon refusal, foisted the case. Procedural compliance, especially under Section 42 NDPS Act, was disputed due to non-corroboration and discrepancies in evidence. Allegations of bribe were substantiated through documents and witness testimony, prompting departmental enquiry into P.W.1’s conduct.
Statutory Analysis
- The court engaged in detailed interpretation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act:
- Held that both sub-sections (1) and (2) require secret information to be recorded in writing and promptly communicated to a superior before any search and seizure.
- Precedents establish total non-compliance is fatal; only satisfactory, explained delay is excusable.
- Reiterated that Section 42 compliance is distinct from the Cr.P.C. FIR registration process.
- Referred to Section 50 (rights of the accused before search) and Section 57 (reporting requirements post-seizure).
- Application of Section 2 (definitions of cannabis, ganja) was marginal, as the main issue was procedural compliance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are present in this single-judge judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed the Director General of Police, Chennai, to conduct an independent departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer (P.W.1) for misconduct (bribe), to be completed within three months.
- This action is notable as it moves beyond the criminal trial to ensure police accountability in NDPS prosecutions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on Section 42 NDPS procedural compliance is strictly affirmed and applied.
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Not triggered: Judgment strictly adheres to existing law, does not overturn law or set new conflicting standards.