Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation
Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by gen The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
[42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.-- (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,-
(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:
2[Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:
Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.]
Section 42, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 13
- s. 41 Power to issue warrant and authorisation
- s. 43 Power of seizure and arrest in public place
- s. 44 Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest in offences relating to coca plant, opium poppy and cannabis plant
- s. 45 Procedure where seizure of goods liable to confiscation not practicable
- s. 46 Duty of land holder to give information of illegal cultivation
- s. 47 Duty of certain officers to give information of illegal cultivation
- s. 48 Power of attachment of crop illegally cultivated
- s. 49 Power to stop and search conveyance
- s. 50 Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted
- s. 52 Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized
- s. 56 Obligation of officers to assist each other
- s. 58 Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest
and 1 more
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The informant and the investigating officer cannot be the same person in an NDPS prosecution; that identity vitiates a fair investigation (later benches have confined the rule — still a teaching starting point).
On this section: s.42 warrantless search/seizure investigation is vitiated if the informant is also the IO.
-
M. Uma Maheswar vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which mandates that officers record received information in writing and transmit a copy to their immediate official superior within seventy-two hours, applies only to non-gazetted officers acting without prior warrant or authorization under Sections 41(1) or 41(2). This requirement does not apply to gazetted rank officers acting under Section 41(2) authority, as such officers are the source of authorization power for subordinates and cannot be equated with officers acting without authorization. The rationale for Section 42(2) - to inform superiors of unauthorized actions by subordinates - does not apply to gazetted officers who possess inherent authority to conduct searches and seizures on their own.
On this section: Section 42 provides for search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. Section 42(1) allows empowered officers to take action without prior authorization. Section 42(2) requires officers taking action under 42(1) to record information in writing and send copy to immediate superior within 72 hours. The court held that Section 42(2) applies only to non-gazetted officers, not gazetted officers who have inherent authority under Section 41(2).
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization by empowered officers
-
Union of India vs Sheo Shambhu Giri
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the offense requires proof that the person was involved in import into India, export from India, or transhipment in connection with such import or export. The term 'tranship' must be understood in the context of international drug movement, not as a standalone offense for domestic possession or transportation. Mere possession and carrying of narcotic drugs without proof of involvement in international drug movement does not constitute an offense under Section 23; it may constitute offenses under other sections of the NDPS Act, but not Section 23.
On this section: These sections establish mandatory procedural requirements for seizure, examination, and handling of narcotic drugs. The High Court noted non-compliance with these mandatory provisions as a factor supporting acquittal, and the Supreme Court did not disturb this reasoning.
-
Dehal Singh vs State of H. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When contraband is recovered from a private vehicle in which an accused is traveling, both the driver and passengers are presumed to have conscious possession of such contraband. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove that possession was not conscious. Mere statements under Section 313 CrPC without examination as a witness under oath are insufficient to discharge this burden. Weight discrepancies in forensic samples are immaterial when field weighing is done using non-precision scales (such as grocery shop scales) and laboratory weighing is done using precision scales, provided there is no evidence of tampering with or mishandling of the samples. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (regarding search of persons) is satisfied by offering the accused an option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate when the primary object of search is a vehicle, and personal search occurs incidentally after arrest at the police station.
On this section: Referenced regarding authorization of officers to conduct searches
-
Ajmer Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When narcotic drugs are recovered from a bag or container carried by a person (rather than from the body of the person), the procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 do not apply, as Section 50 applies only to personal body search. The non-compliance with Section 50 regarding bag search does not vitiate the conviction. Furthermore, absence of independent witnesses does not necessarily vitiate evidence in narcotics cases if reasonable efforts were made to involve independent witnesses and police testimony is found credible upon careful evaluation. The principle of parity in sentencing applies only when co-accused are tried together in the same proceeding and convicted simultaneously; it does not apply when co-accused are tried in separate trials under separate FIRs.
On this section: Grants power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant to authorized officers of various departments. Provides authority for officers to conduct narcotics searches.
-
Sarju @ Ramu vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases under the NDPS Act, particularly where serious allegations are made against police officials, the procedural safeguards contained in the Act, especially Section 50 requiring that a person to be searched must be informed of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, must be scrupulously complied with. Failure to inform the person of this right renders the recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates the conviction where the conviction is based solely on possession of the illicit article recovered during the illegal search. Evidence obtained through violation of Section 50 safeguards cannot be used as evidence of unlawful possession to sustain a conviction. The investigating agency must follow the procedure envisaged by the statute scrupulously, and failure to do so must be viewed seriously by higher authorities. An accused is entitled to a fair trial, and a conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to the concept of justice.
On this section: Requirements for empowered officers to record information in writing and send copy to superior before taking action; substantial compliance required
-
Bahadur Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-compliance with the procedural provisions of Sections 42 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act does not mandatorily vitiate a criminal trial or conviction if: (1) substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is demonstrated through facts and circumstances of the case; (2) no prejudice to the accused is shown; and (3) the interpretation of such procedural requirements must account for changed technological context and practical exigencies in narcotics enforcement, particularly in emergent situations requiring immediate police action, while maintaining the core investigative safeguards.
On this section: Central issue: Requirements for recording and communicating information about narcotic offenses. Court held that substantial compliance suffices and non-compliance does not vitiate trial if no prejudice caused, particularly in context of modern technology and emergency situations
-
State of Punjab vs Gurnam Kaur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a conviction is based on multiple procedural violations including violation of mandatory statutory search procedures (Section 50(4) NDPS Act), absence of independent witnesses with no explanation provided, failure to record informant statements in writing, unexplained delays in lodging FIR beyond mandatory timeframes, and absence of evidence establishing conscious possession of contraband, and when two views of the evidence are possible, a superior court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. The exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted in such circumstances.
On this section: Mandatory provisions regarding timing and procedure for lodging FIRs; the court noted non-compliance with these provisions when the FIR was lodged approximately 11 hours after the initial seizure.
-
Central Bureau of Narcotics vs Bahadur Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution consists of discrepant official witness testimonies, unreliable independent witnesses who resile from initial versions, a confessional statement with material discrepancies, unclear ownership and possession of the premises from which the contraband is recovered, and procedural violations in the search and seizure process, the conviction cannot be sustained. A High Court's comprehensive judgment based on careful appreciation of evidence, finding such fundamental weaknesses in the prosecution case, should not be interfered with by the appellate court, particularly when the legal burden requires proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal matters.
On this section: Search procedure; High Court found violation of this section in the investigation and seizure process.
-
Budhiyarin Bai vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While offences under the NDPS Act are serious and warrant stringent punishment, courts must consider mitigating factors under Section 32B of the NDPS Act, including the personal circumstances of the accused such as age, illiteracy, rural background, lack of criminal history, and awareness of legal consequences, before imposing sentences higher than the minimum prescribed. The mere residence of an accused in a house where drugs are found, without clear evidence of active involvement in trafficking, may not justify the same level of punishment as those directly involved in the illegal trade, particularly when co-accused suppliers are acquitted.
On this section: Procedural compliance regarding search and seizure. The High Court considered compliance with this section as basis for upholding conviction.
-
Gurjant Singh vs State of Hry
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving possession of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act, substantial compliance with statutory procedural requirements (such as recording secret information, maintaining chain of custody, and joining respectables during search) is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Strict compliance should not be insisted upon when immediate action is necessary to prevent the accused's escape or when procedural provisions are directory rather than mandatory in nature. The evidence of official witnesses, when found to be reliable and trustworthy after careful scrutiny, can sustain a conviction even without corroboration from independent witnesses who have been won over by the accused. Material obtained through procedurally irregular searches is not inadmissible in evidence and can be acted upon to record a conviction, provided the chain of custody is maintained and the integrity of the evidence is established through other corroborating evidence.
On this section: Relates to the procedure for recording secret information. The court held that substantial compliance is sufficient and strict compliance should not be insisted upon when immediate action is necessary to prevent the accused's escape.
-
State of Tripura vs Uttam Kumar Paul
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS cases, the mere proximity of an accused to contraband in a public place, without clear evidence of ownership or control, is insufficient to establish conscious possession if contradicted by independent witnesses.
On this section: Distinction between search in enclosed places vs. public places.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Rajasthan Gazette, Extra, Part IV-C (II), whereby all Inspectors of Police and Sub Inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officer, have been authorized to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act. This Notification reads as under: "S.O. 115.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No.61 of 1985) the State Government hereby authorise all Inspectors of Police, and Sub-inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officers, to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act with immediate fact: Provided that when …
-
… Rajasthan Gazette, Extra, Part IV-C (II), whereby all Inspectors of Police and Sub Inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officer, have been authorized to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act. This Notification reads as under: "S.O. 115.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No.61 of 1985) the State Government hereby authorise all Inspectors of Police, and Sub-inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officers, to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act with immediate fact: Provided that when …
-
… in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extra, Part IV-C (II), all Inspectors of Police and Sub Inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officer, have been authorized to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act. This Notification reads as under: "S.O. 115.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No.61 of 1985) the State Government hereby authorise all Inspectors of Police, and Sub-inspectors of police, posted as Station House Officers, to exercise the powers mentioned in Section 42 of the said Act with immediate fact: Provided that when …
Made under this section, and citing it
2 instruments state that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.
Another 4 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- GSR 61(E)Notification 2017
- The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ( Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order 2013Order 2013
- Making easy availability of “Morphine’ drugs to needy cancer patients in Tamil Nadu – Simplification of procedure and making availability of medicines through Recognised Medical Institutions Suggestions of government of India and Representations of Indian Association of Palliative Care and Cancer Institute, Adyar accepted - Procedure prescribed – Amendments to Tamil Nadu Narcotic Drug Rules, 1995 - Orders issued.Order 2000
- The Tamil Nadu Narcotic Drugs Rules, 1985Rule 1985
Questions about Section 42
What have the courts held on Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (16 Aug 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.42 warrantless search/seizure investigation is vitiated if the informant is also the IO. Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: NDPS Act 42, section 42 NDPS Act, section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 42(2) and ndps 42 notice. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (16 Aug 2018).
What should I read with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and has it changed?
13 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there are 2: most recently SO 821-826 (E) (1985), then SO 821-826 (E) (1985).
When did Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 42, came into force on 14 Nov 1985, having been enacted on 16 Sep 1985. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1747 words
- 68B. Definitions819 words
- 9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate816 words
- 36A. Offences triable by Special Courts631 words
- 10. Power of State Government to permit, control and regulate568 words
- 31A. Death penalty for certain offences after previous conviction458 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.