Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.50 – Applicability of s.50 in a case where there is personal search also – In the instant case, appellant and another accused carrying a bag in their hands were intercepted by police party – Contraband goods weighing 6 kg 300 gms were recovered from the bag – Conviction of appellant under s.18 by courts below – Challenged on the ground that s.50 was not complied; that DSP-Gazetted Officer in whose presence the search as alleged by the prosecution was conducted was present at the same time in another case; that the contraband allegedly 6 kgs 300 gms was not produced before the court and that prosecution has not associated any independent prosecution witness in support of its case – Held: This is not a case where anything was recovered on the alleged personal search – The recovery was effected from the bag for which law is settled that compliance with s.50 of the Act is not required – The contention regarding non-production of the contraband was not taken before the trial Court – This contention as such was taken before the High Court – This is a case where the sample was produced – There was no argument relating to the tampering with the seal – Courts below reposed confidence in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses – Thus, in the light of this, a case was not made for overturning the verdict of guilt returned against the appellant – In the circumstances, even though there appeared doubt as to whether the DSP was present, upon being called by PW7 having regard to the testimony of the DSP in the other case, in view of the fact that the contraband articles were in fact recovered upon search of the bag, and bearing in mind the view taken in Baljinder Singh, the case of the appellant is rejected.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: This is not a case where anything was recovered on the alleged personal search. The recovery was effected from the bag for which it is settled law that compliance with Section 50 of the Act is not required. The judgment of the Trial Court did not appear to suggest the appellant had taken the contention regarding non-production of the contraband before the trial Court. This contention as such was taken before the High Court. This is a case where the sample was produced. There is no argument relating to the tampering with the seal. Though there appears to be doubt created about whether the DSP was present, upon being called by PW7 having regard to the testimony of the DSP in the other case, in view of the fact that the contraband articles were in fact recovered upon search of the bag, there is no merit in the argument of the appellant. [Paras 21, 30, 34][1098-G-H; 1104-EF; 1105-E] Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 123 : [2011] 4 SCR 253 – distinguished.
State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh and Another (2019)
10 SCC 473 – relied on.
Jitendra and Another v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC
562 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 918 ; Gorakh Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar (2018) 2 SCC 305 ; State of Rajasthan v. Sahi Ram (2019) 10 SCC 649 ; Dilip and Another v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR
390 ; SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of West Bengal (2018) 9 SCC 708 : [2018] 10 SCR
731 ; Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 14 SCC 527 : [2013] 4 SCR 293 ; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 18 SCC 540 : [2018] 10 SCR 910 – 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.