Supreme Court has made clear that simply filing a First Information Report and sending it up the chain does not replace an officer’s duty under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which requires recording information and passing it on. Supreme Court ruling was announced on August 12 2026 in Kashmir Ram @ Pappi v. State of Punjab decided by Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih.
Case goes back to May 4 2014 when police stopped a Tata Safari near Canal Bridge in Village Tehang, Punjab acting on a tip-off. Search found ten sacks of poppy husk 200 kilograms, hidden under a tarpaulin. Vehicle occupants, Kashmir Ram @ Pappi and Dharam Pal @ Bobby were arrested. Later search of Kashmir Ram @ Pappi and Dharam Pal @ Bobbys home found another 160 kilograms. That recovery was removed from the case because that recovery did not meet procedural requirements of Section 100(4) of the CrPC. Trial court in Jalandhar convicted Kashmir Ram @ Pappi and Dharam Pal @ Bobby under Section 15(c) of NDPS Act and Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld conviction in 2019.
Before Supreme Court defence argued that police failed to record and transmit tip-off as Section 42 demands. Supreme Court disagreed on facts of case. Reaffirmed principle that skipping requirement is fatal to prosecution. Because vehicle was stopped while moving officers faced emergency that made it impractical to write everything before acting. Supreme Court found sufficient that written note or ruqa was sent before search and that senior gazetted officer was informed and kept in loop approach consistent with decision in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana.
Bench clarified that Section 50 safeguards apply to personal search of a person not to vehicles so no lapse there. Bench also held that delay in sending samples for testing does not weaken case once court is satisfied seal remained intact and that unproven casual remarks do not disturb presumption of knowing possession under Section 54. With all these points weighed Supreme Court dismissed appeal, upheld conviction, under Section 15(c) upheld ten-year sentence upheld ₹1,00,000 fine and upheld year imprisonment in default of payment.