High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRA-S/3577/2023allowed

Varinder Thakur Alias Vicky v. State Of Punjab

2026-05-12Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth17 pages

" ! # $% &$ '

()$

*% + #%,(- .///00&**

#&$+)+ 1 1&

)

./// &+02 & #%($ % 7'

*% + #%,(- .///00&**

#&$+)+ 1 1&

)

./// &+02 & / !

1& 8'&

$&$ + $&+&$9&

/ / :

$2 2) ,&6& $&$ / / :

/ !

1& )0*2 % $&$ / / :

/ ;'&1'&$ 20&$ 1%9& $1 2$ 3)** $&$ %+ 0$2 2) ,&

)** / !&* -< %3

-< %

0$2 2) ,% 3)**

2$&$<

$& +2 + 1'&$&23 21 00*%, 5*& = > ? /

"#"$ % & '

()( "#"$

* + ,

---- "

#< / ) '

, /

1 /1.

/1 /1.

33 +3

#" )) "#"

% )#6 ) )# "#)7

"7 )78 (!

$/ 2/ 6& 2 9%,1+

&$ &,1%2 & 1& ,& ) /

/1.

") 0 33 )# .

)#####9

' 33 :

"7 0 33 )# .

)#####9

' 33 :

3 (!

0 33 #"

###9

' 33 3 "

/1 /1.

") 0 33 )# .

)#####9

' 33 :

"7 0 33 )# .

)#####9

' 33 :

3 (!

0 33 #"

###9

' 33 3 "

; ) )# "#)7 5 *

. , <

3 ;

3 3

3 5 > . .

5 *

1 /1. / < 3 ?

% ) <

= 3

3 5

/1 /1.

3 3

, ' 1.

3. , % < )# 4@ )6"6 3

1 /1.

3 5 3

, ,

4 , , 5 *

,>. 5 *

3 % ) =

, #8) ,

A /

1 /1.

/1 /1.

3 .

3. , % < )# 4@ )6"6 1

' .

(

' 3 ,

* B ;

33 & + 3 .

5 *

, #7)

* B ; C

, 1 . 3 , /

1 /1.

3 '

!# 3.

' ( 3 .

, A

' 5 ; 5 ; ,

3 , 5 / D;

, 3 E/F

; ' . )6 )# "#)7

' 3 .

= '

' 3 )# 3 3

3 3 EF ,1 ( 3

' .

1 /1.

3, 3. <

)6"6 5

3. .

1 /1.

, ?

3 D' 3

? .

3 G:

/ )8 #! "#""

' 3

( 5

& :

3 '

; @ 2'/ %A= &

3. D

;

%+'

% 1= 33, 3 .

,3 !

; @ ?B

+9%$ )$= &

"" )# "#)7

)# 3

43 "7

4 = , . =

; @ C%$

4%1 )$ 33%,% *= ' 3. , % < )# 4@ )6"6

< )#

)6"6

; @ # $% &$0 * % 7'= < 3 .

5 ; )6 )# "#)7

@ !

4%1=

5 ;

; @ )$,'

% 7'

9&+1%7 1% 33%,&$=

3 D

3 1 + 1

3 ' 3 ,1 #! #6 "#"

5 >

;D @ &1%$& +0&,12$ $% &$ % 7'= &

)6 )# "#)7 5 / D;

3. 1

3 '

5 ; .

' )

1 /1.

3 /1 /1.

' 3. , % < )# 4@

)6"6 D

, .

3 04 =

, 1 04 =

) )# "#)7 3

5 ' :

3 3.

, & 33

B 3

04 =

) )# "#)7

)6 )# "#)7 D

,1 , % < )# *?

6#( .

) D Vikram Singh vs. Ramanpreet Kaur

&) ; ,

+3 =

3 (""$ 5

, ,

3 $ .

, /

?3 H ) 5 >

3, % 8 7)8 ###!8 3

3 5 *

, .

) , 5 *

3 '

3 3

, #6(

D .

3 + D

3 +

' 3

' 3 5

3 G:

) 04

: )# =

, = '

' ,

, :

3 )) 0

' :

3 H ) 5 >

. "#)

> , 5 ; 5 *

H !$

3 5 > G:

, /

, :

>. 3 '

3 & :

3 5;

9 ("

, 3

' '1

1 3

H ! 5 ; .

/1 /1.

D .

, 5 >

, + D

3, 3 5 > .

5 > )"

; ,

3 ("

, 5

, ,

, .

5 ,3

, /

5 ;

, , ) 5 ,3

, +3 DI, 3

: $%6%

* <

+ ,

:D/ )( 3,

3 ,

3 > , 4 = , .

3 '

!""#$%&'('$( &%%" )*+ ,- ,.

/%%012 ,3

3 '

. : .

3 : .

3 , . .

) 5

, .

>. 1 , 3.

3 ; .

3 )6 ;

* + ,

ruqa

+ 3

33 .

3 G:

) 5 > H )$

3 G:

)9 5 ; 3 '

, /

H!9$

3 . ,> 3 (""$

. 3 ' (""$

"%!

* - 3, * * $/& xxx $!& Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy&two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior." )!

)8 5 Darshan Singh (supra) )# )

"10. The solitary question that arises for our consideration in the Instant appeal, is whether the registration of the first information report, narrating the factual position as Lhas already been described at the beginning of this order, as also, the communication of the first information report to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat would constitute an effective compliance of the provisions contained in section 42 of the NDPS Act.

11.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the mandate contained in section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, requiring the recording in writing, the details pertaining to the receipt of secret information, as also, the communication of the same to the superior officer are separate and distinct from the procedure stipulated under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sub&section 1 of section 41 of the NDPS Act provides that a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class or any Magistrate of Second Class specially empowered by the State Government may issue a warrant for the arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under Chapter IV.

Sub&section (2) of Section 41 refers to issue of authorisation for similar purposes by the officers of the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence, etc. Sub&section (1) of section 42 of the NDPS Act lays down, that the empowered officer, if he has a prior information given by any person, should necessarily take it down in writing, and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge, that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building, etc.

without warrant between sunrise and sunset and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief. The two separate procedures noticed above are exclusive of one another. Compliance of one, would not infer the compliance of the other. In the circumstances contemplated under section 42 of the NDPS Act the mandate of the procedure contemplated therein will have to be followed separately, in the manner interpreted by this Court in Karnail Singh's case (supra) and the same will not be assumed, merely because the Station House Officer concerned had registered a first Information report, which was also dispatched to the Superintendent of Police, in compliance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

12.

In the above view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent&State, that the registration of the first information report at the hands of the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahar, Panipat and its communication to the Superintendent of Police, Panipat would constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate of section 42 of the NDPS Act. 13.

In aforesaid view of the matter, we are satisfied, that section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with at all, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. Thus viewed, conclusion (d) recorded in Paragraph 35 of the judgment rendered in Karnall Singh's case (supra), would fully apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and we are left with no other option, but to set aside the conviction and the sentence of imprisonment of the\ accused&appellant Darshan Singh. Ordered accordingly. The appeal stands allowed."

)7 & .

>3 (""$

, '

3 ("

3 3 .

, , 5 ("

3 H ) 5 >

5 ; 5 *

H !$ 1

3 .

, , , 3 ,.

< '

3 3 (""$ .

, 3.

* B ; H 6$ ' 1

Ewe were having cell phones with us but we did not prepare any videography or photographs through our phones at the spot. The particulars of the case was mentioned on the parcels by IO SI Gurcharan Singh F

3 &

, #7)

, % 3,

* B ; .

, = ' 3 G:

) .

3 ,

, /

?3 J'

' D :

3 ,

33 .

3 :

E .F ") )" "#""

, , 1' , D;

5 / H $ ' ,:

, %

, "# 5 '

, 3

3 3 ("

. .

: .

'1 3 , .

' '

") . '

, <

. .

, >

, ,

$ ""

! / / :

+'6% ;'&1'&$ +0& (% 7B$& +2 &= "&+B2 ;'&1'&$ &02$1 5*&=

"&+B2