Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.20 and 50 – Non-compliance of s.50 – Prosecution case that Police raided appellant-accused and on search found contraband article “Charas” weighing around 2.5 Kg in quantity from his body – Trial Court convicted u/s. 20 of the NDPS Act – Conviction confirmed by the High Court – Appellant-accused contended that the prosecution failed to ensure mandatory compliance of s.50 of the NDPS Act – Held: In order to make the search and recovery of the contraband articles from the body of the suspect, the search and recovery has to be in conformity with the mandatory requirements of s.50 of the Act – In instant case, appellant was not produced before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer as envisaged in s.50 – Thus, prosecution was not able to prove that search and recovery of the contraband made from the appellant was in accordance with the procedure prescribed u/s.50 of the NDPS Act – Therefore, the appellant entitled to claim its benefit to seek his acquittal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In order to make the search and recovery of the contraband articles from the body of the suspect, the search and recovery has to be in conformity with the requirements of Section
50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Act. It is, therefore, mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the search and recovery was made from the appellant in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Though, the prosecution examined as many as five police officials (PW-1 to PW-5) of the raiding police party but none of them deposed that the search/recovery was made in presence of any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. [Paras 28 and 29] [793-E-F]
2. The prosecution was not able to prove that the search and recovery of the contraband (Charas) made from the appellant was in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Since the non-compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case and, in instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove the compliance as required in law, the appellant is entitled to claim its benefit to seek his acquittal. [Para 30] [793-G-H; 794-A]
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 : [2010] 13 SCR 255 – relied on.
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 : [1999] 3 SCR 977 ; Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 2 SCC 67 : [2013] 1 SCR 236 ; Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi (2011) 6 SCC 392 : [2011] 6 SCR 974 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.