Section 43 NDPS Act Is Applicable When Search & Seizure Of Contraband Is Made From Vehicle Used By Way Of Chance Recovery From Public Place: Manipur HC
The Manipur High Court has observed that Section 43 of the NDPS Act will be applicable where the search and seizure is made from the vehicle used by way of chance recovery from public place.
The Court noted that prior knowledge is not a mandatory requirement of Section 43, unlike Sections 41 and 42 of NDPS Act.
In that context, the Bench of Justice A Guneshwar Sharma observed that, "Section 43 of the Act will be applicable where the search and seizure is made from the vehicle used by way of chance recovery from public place. Prior knowledge is not a mandatory requirement of Section 43, unlike Sections 41 and 42 of ND&PS Act. In the case in hand, there was no prior information or knowledge about the carrying of the contrabands in the seized vehicle. The contrabands were detected by the local people first and then by the police, when the vehicle carrying them broke down at the IVR of Phoudel. Situated such, the main ingredient for invoking the mandatory provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Act of having prior information about the carrying or storage of the contrabands seems to be missing. The contrabands were detected by the public and then by the police personnel of Thoubal PS by chance. If the vehicle did not break down at the IVR of Phoudel, the contrabands could not have been detected either by the local people or by the police. The present case seems to fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 43 of ND&PS Act dealing with seizure on chance recovery."
A revision petition was filed against the Special Trial Court of Thoubal's decision to discharge the accused under the NDPS Act. The case involved locals discovering contraband in Phoudel after the accused's vehicle broke down. The locals transferred the vehicle to Thoubal for safety, where the Thoubal District Police seized the vehicle and arrested the first accused with local assistance. Subsequently, the other accused were also arrested.
The Special Trial Court discharged the accused on two grounds: first, the irregularity of changing the place of occurrence from Phoudel to Thoubal, and second, the police's failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 41, 42, and 50 of the NDPS Act.
The High Court took the opinion that the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 were not attracted and discharge on those grounds were not warranted.
Subsequently, the Court observed that, "it is evident that the ingredients for the offences under Sections 22(c)/29/60(3) of ND&PS Act and Section 468 IPC are made out against the accused persons who are respondents herein. The applicability of the mandatory provisions and admissibility of the materials relied by the prosecution are to be decided during the trial and such factual aspects cannot be presumed by the court in a charge hearing proceeding."
In light of the same, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Cause Title: The State of Manipur & Anr. vs Mohammad Hussain @ Thoiba & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
