Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20060
Decided on: 06.05.2025
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G., Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Surya Kant, AOR, Mrs. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS -- Search by temporary charge of SHO – Legality of -- SHO was absent on the relevant date and therefore, he has handed over the charge of the SHO to the Circle Inspector (Sub-Inspector) who has carried out the search -- Person holding temporary charge as Station House Officer at the relevant time is competent to carry out the search -- Submission that the Officer ought to be actually posted as SHO and not as In-Charge SHO is of no substance and cannot be accepted -- High Court manifestly erred in interpreting Section 42 of the Act and in holding that the In-Charge SHO was not competent to conduct the search -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the trial is directed to continue in accordance with law, expeditiously. Bheru Lal’s case (2013) 11 SCC 730 relied.
(Para 8-11)
Cases referred:
1. State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheru Lal: (2013) 11 SCC 730.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The respondents were charged in connection with FIR No.552 of 2011 dated 10.09.2011, registered with Police Station Nimbahera, District-Chittorgarh, under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851 [1hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising therefrom. The High Court by the order impugned dated 01.09.2017 has quashed the said proceedings for the reason that the search was conducted by an unauthorized officer.
5. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the In-Charge Station House Officer is an authorized person to conduct the search as per Section 42 of the Act.
6. Vide the notification issued under Section 42 of the Act, the State Government has authorized all Inspectors of Police and Sub-Inspectors of Police posted as Station House Officers2 [2hereinafter referred to as ‘SHO’] to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the Act with immediate effect.
7. In the case at hand, the SHO ‘Veera Ram Choudhary’, was absent on the relevant date and therefore, on 09.09.2011, he has handed over the charge of the SHO to the Circle Inspector(Sub-Inspector, ‘Shri Kamal Chand’) who has carried out the search.
8. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheru Lal: (2013) 11 SCC 730, vide paragraph ‘15’, it has been held that the person holding temporary charge as Station House Officer at the relevant time is competent to carry out the search.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the submission that the Officer ought to be actually posted as SHO and not as In-Charge SHO is of no substance and cannot be accepted.
10. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in interpreting Section 42 of the Act and in holding that the In-Charge SHO was not competent to conduct the search.
11. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 01.09.2017 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the trial is directed to continue in accordance with law, expeditiously.
12. The present appeal is allowed in the above terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
********