- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15694 WP No. 9934 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9934 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. JOHN EGWUATU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O CHINEDU EGWUATU, R/O NO-04, 10TH CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560032 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF UMUME ANAM VILLAGE ANABAR WEST OTUCHG CITY, NIGERIA-432109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER PSI, V V PURAM POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B N JAGADISH, ADDL.SPP WITH SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15694 WP No. 9934 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C. 2856/2023 (CRIME NO. 110/2023 OF V V PURAM POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECITON 22(c) AND 27(a) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPHIC SUBSTANCES ACT 1985 PENDING OF THE FILE OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 35) BENGLAURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner-accused No.1, who is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act, 1985’), is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 22.07.2023, at about 3:30 p.m., when the complainant, Sub-Inspector CW.1, was in the Police Station, he received credible information that near National College Metro Station, a person with a vehicle was selling MDMA to the public. This information was conveyed to the superior officer, and after obtaining permission, a raid was conducted. Upon apprehending the petitioner, it was disclosed that the petitioner was in possession of 1 Kg 20 grams of methamphetamine. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15694 WP No. 9934 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the investigation and taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences stand vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, which is mandatory. In support of this argument, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, (2016) 11 SCC 687. 4. On the other hand, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State, submitted that the investigation was conducted after complying with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. Even otherwise, the investigation and trial do not stand vitiated for non-compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, and he seeks dismissal of the petition. In support of his argument, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both parties, and their arguments have been duly considered. 6. A perusal of the Station House Diary indicates that the information was received by the complainant on 22.07.2023 at about 3:30 p.m. However, the Mahazar, which forms part of the charge sheet, indicated that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15694 WP No. 9934 of 2025 information was received on 22.07.2023 at about 2:15 p.m. This clearly establishes that the entry in relation to receiving credible information was made after the investigation was conducted. 7. The Station House Diary clearly indicated that the information was received at 2:15 p.m., but it was not recorded as mandated under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Karnail Singh (supra) ruled that in special circumstances and emergent situations (when the officer is on the move), recording of information is not practical prior to search and seizure. If the recording of information before the search would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the search and seizure, the requirement of writing down and conveying information to the superior officer may be postponed for a reasonable period, which may even be after the search, entry, and seizure. 9. In the instant case, the prosecution has not placed any material to substantiate that, due to exigency, the information was not recorded and subsequently used to conduct the search and seizure. Therefore, the legal principles established by the Apex Court in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15694 WP No. 9934 of 2025 aforementioned cases are not applicable to the facts of this case. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala (2000) 8 SCC 590 ruled that non- compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985, vitiates the trial. In para 18, it was held that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice when the search and seizure were conducted in violation of Sections 42 and 42(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat (2024 SCC OnLine SC 520) observed that in a case involving explicit non-compliance with the statutory requirements under the NDPS Act, 1985, the trial would be vitiated, as seen in Chhunna alias Mehtab v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 9 SCC 363. 12. In the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299, the Apex Court ruled that the provisions contained in Section 42 are mandatory, and contravention of the same would be fatal to the prosecution case and would vitiate the trial. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15694 WP No. 9934 of 2025 13. In light of the foregoing discussions, the trial stands vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would constitute an abuse of the legal process. 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 15. The impugned proceedings in Spl.C.C.2856/2023 (Crime No.110/2023 of V.V.Puram Police Station) on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH- 35) Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioner-herein stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 117