The Supreme Court of India addressed a case challenging the Rajasthan High Court's decision to quash an FIR filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The High Court's reasoning was that the search was conducted by an unauthorized officer.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, stating that the In-Charge Station House Officer (SHO) was competent to conduct the search in the absence of the designated SHO. This ruling was based on a notification under Section 42 of the NDPS Act which authorized certain police officers to perform searches. The court referenced a previous case, State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheru Lal, supporting the competency of an officer holding temporary charge.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, concluding that the In-Charge SHO was indeed authorized to conduct the search. The trial was ordered to proceed as per law.
The Supreme Court recently held that a search under the NDPS Act can be carried out by the In-Charge Station House Officer in the absence of the designated SHO of the Police Station.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti was hearing the challenge against the order of the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed an FIR for offences under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The High Court quashed the FIR on the grounds that the search was carried out by an unauthorised officer.
The Court noted that as per a notification issued under S.42 of the Act, "the State Government has authorised all Inspectors of Police and Sub-Inspectors of Police posted as Station House Officers to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the Act with immediate effect."
Notably, S.42 of the Act provides that any officer as specified in the provision has the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.
However, in the present case, the SHO 'Veera Ram Choudhary', was absent on the relevant date and therefore, on 09.09.2011, although he handed over the charge of the SHO to the Circle Inspector(Sub Inspector, 'Shri Kamal Chand'), who ended up carrying out the search.
The bench referred to the decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. Bheru Lal which held that a person holding temporary charge as Station House Officer at the relevant time is competent to carry out the search.
Thus, the Court rejected the view of the High Court that the search should be carried out by the Officer who is actually posted as SHO and not as In-Charge SHO.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Court held "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."
The Court also directed that the trial continue as per law.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.; Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv.; Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Surya Kant, AOR; Mrs. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.
Case details : STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. GOPAL & ORS.| Diary No. 28242/2019
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 552
If you often open multiple tabs and struggle to keep track of them, Tabs Reminder is the solution you need. Tabs Reminder lets you set reminders for tabs so you can close them and get notified about them later. Never lose track of important tabs again with Tabs Reminder!
Try our Chrome extension today!
Share this article with your
friends and colleagues.
Earn points from views and
referrals who sign up.
Learn more