Private vehicles not 'public place' under Section 43 of NDPS Act: Supreme Court [READ JUDGMENT]

A private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” as explained in Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the Supreme Court reaffirmed (Boota Singh v. State of Haryana)..Thus, when recovery of banned substance is effected from a private vehicles parked on a public road, Section 43 of the NDPS Act will not apply.Instead, it will be Section 42 which will be applicable, a Bench of Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph held.“The explanation to Section 43 shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression ‘public place’ as explained in Section 43 of the NDPS Act. On the strength of the decision of this Court in Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, the relevant provision would not be Section 43 of the NDPS Act but the case would come under Section 42 of the NDPS Act,” the Court said..Since, in the instant case, there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 42, the Court set aside the conviction of the three accused.The judgment was rendered in an appeal filed by the accused-appellants challenging a March 2020 verdict of the Punjab & Haryana High Court..The case against the accused was that they were caught with poppy straw in a jeep parked on the road.The Investigating Officer had deposed in his chief examination that when he raided the jeep based on tip-off he found the accused with two sacks in the jeep.He thereafter asked the accused whether they desired their search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The accused declined the offer and reposed faith in police officer..Before the trial court, the counsel for the accused sought acquittal citing non-compliance with section 42 requirements.The trial court, however, held that since recovery in question was effected from the accused while they were sitting on road in a jeep at a public place, the case would be covered by Section 43 of the NDPS Act and not Section 42.The trial court after considering the evidence acquitted one person but convicted three of the accused and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with imposition of fine in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh..The High Court agreed with the trial court stating that “the accused were present in a jeep on a public path and in such circumstance, the provisions of Section 43 and not of 42 of the Act come into play. As per explanation to Section 43 of the Act, the public place includes a conveyance also.”The Supreme Court, however, disagreed stating that unless the vehicles is a public transport vehicle, it would not come within the expression “public place” under Section 43.“The evidence in the present case clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance but was a vehicle belonging to accused Gurdeep Singh. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle, which has been placed on record also does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle,” the top court said while acquitting the accused for non-compliance with Section 42..[Read Judgment]