The Supreme Court of India has clarified that an In-Charge Station House Officer (SHO) can legally conduct searches under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), even in the absence of the designated SHO of the police station. This ruling came from a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti while hearing an appeal against the Rajasthan High Court's order.
Read also: Supreme Court Reserves Treasurer & 30% EC Posts for Women Lawyers in Gujarat Bar Associations
The case revolved around an FIR registered for offenses under Sections 8/18, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Rajasthan High Court had previously quashed the FIR, stating that the search was conducted by an unauthorized officer. The High Court believed that only the officially designated SHO had the authority to conduct such searches, and an In-Charge SHO was not competent for the task.
The Supreme Court noted that a notification issued under Section 42 of the NDPS Act authorized all Inspectors of Police and Sub-Inspectors of Police, posted as Station House Officers, to exercise the powers specified under Section 42. This section grants officers the authority to enter, search, seize, and arrest without requiring a warrant or authorization.
Read also: Supreme Court Stays Release of In-Service Indian Women Army Officers Amid Tensions
In the case at hand, the designated SHO, Veera Ram Choudhary, was absent on the relevant date, September 9, 2011. He had handed over his charge to Circle Inspector (Sub-Inspector) Kamal Chand, who subsequently carried out the search operation. Despite this, the Rajasthan High Court found the search invalid, as it was conducted by an officer other than the designated SHO.
However, the Supreme Court, relying on its previous judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Bheru Lal, held that an officer temporarily holding the charge of SHO is legally empowered to conduct a 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."
Read also: Supreme Court: Minor Edits in Sanction Order Do Not Invalidate Prosecution
Setting aside the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court allowed the trial to proceed according to the 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
