Report of arrest and seizure
Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with report of arrest and seizure. Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.
Section 57, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985).
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.
-
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: Secondary issue: Requirement to report arrest and seizure to immediate superior. Court held this is not mandatory and substantial compliance occurs when FIR and details are sent to police station and higher officers
-
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: Procedure for preservation and examination of contraband; High Court identified violation of this section affecting evidence integrity.
-
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: Report submitted by ASI to SHO regarding secret information and recovery of poppy husk, demonstrating compliance with procedural requirements.
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.
-
… On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has vehemently argued, taking me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from infirmities, inconsistencies and contradictions and the police officials did not follow the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which are mandatory provisions and as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal. 14 . Keeping in view the above rial submissions, let us now appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out as to whether the prosecution could prove the …
Questions about Section 57
What have the courts held on Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
Bahadur Singh vs State of Haryana (06 Apr 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Secondary issue: Requirement to report arrest and seizure to immediate superior. Court held this is not mandatory and substantial compliance occurs when FIR and details are sent to police station and higher officers. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2010.
How do I find court cases under Section 57 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 57, section 57 NDPS Act, section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 57 report. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Bahadur Singh vs State of Haryana (06 Apr 2010).
When did Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 57, 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
- 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation507 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.