Introduction:

In the landmark case of State of Rajasthan v. Gopal & Ors. (Diary No. 28242/2019), the Supreme Court of India addressed a pivotal issue concerning the authority of police officers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti, examined whether an officer holding temporary charge as Station House Officer (SHO) is empowered to conduct searches under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. This decision came in the wake of the Rajasthan High Court’s order quashing an FIR on the grounds that the search was conducted by an unauthorized officer.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, along with Ms. Shalini Singh and Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, the State of Rajasthan contended that the search conducted by Sub-Inspector Kamal Chand was lawful. They argued that a notification issued under Section 42 of the NDPS Act authorized all Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Police posted as SHOs to exercise the powers mentioned in the section. On September 9, 2011, the designated SHO, Veera Ram Choudhary, was absent and had officially handed over charge to Sub-Inspector Kamal Chand, making him the In-Charge SHO. Therefore, the search conducted by Kamal Chand was within the legal framework.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents, represented by Mr. Surya Kant and Mrs. Priyanka Tyagi, argued that the search was invalid as it was conducted by an officer not officially posted as SHO. They maintained that the notification under Section 42 specifically empowered only those officers who were officially designated as SHOs, not those holding temporary charge. Thus, the search violated the provisions of the NDPS Act, rendering the subsequent proceedings unlawful.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the NDPS Act and the relevant notification issued under Section 42. The Court observed that the notification authorized all Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Police posted as SHOs to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42, which includes the authority to conduct searches without a warrant. Importantly, the Court referred to the precedent set in State of Rajasthan v. Bheru Lal, wherein it was held that an officer holding temporary charge as SHO is competent to carry out searches under the NDPS Act.

Applying this precedent, the Court concluded that Sub-Inspector Kamal Chand, who was holding charge as SHO on the relevant date, was legally empowered to conduct the search. The Court stated, “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.” Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order and directed that the trial proceed in accordance with the law.