2002 JTR(SC) 998
2003 1 AIC 792 ; 2002 4 AICLR 34 ; 2002 AIR(SC) 3658 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 4303 ; 2002 Supp AllCriC 226 ; 2003 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 382 ; 2002 CriLR 892 ; 2003 CrLJ 27 ; 2002 4 CTC 444 ; 2003 1 EastCrC(SC) 72 ; 2003 2 JCR(SC) 157 ; 2002 8 JT 27 ; 2002 4 RCR(Cri) 470 ; 2002 7 Scale 341 ; 2002 8 SCC 7 ; 2002 SCC(Cri) 1865 ; 2002 Supp3 SCR 121 ; 2003 1 WLC 3 ; 2002 KHC 1731 ; 2002 7 Supreme 122
2002(7) Supreme 122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Chennai High Court)
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., Arijit Pasayat and S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Narayanaswamy Ravishankar -Appellant
versus
Asstt. Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2002
Decided on 3-10-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N. Natarajan, Sr. Advocate, Senthil Jagadeesan and V. Ramasubramanian, Advocates.
For the Respondent : B. Krishna Prasad, Advocate (NP).
IMPORTANT POINT
As search and seizure of narcotic drug was not conducted on person of the accused Section 50 of NDPS Act was not attracted and as search and seizure was done at the airport, a public place, Section 42 of the Act was not attracted.
Act Referred :NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.57, S.50, S.42, S.60
(A) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 42, 50, 57, and 60 govern search, seizure, and arrest procedures in narcotics offences. Section 42 relates to searches in specific circumstances, Section 50 addresses searches of the person, Section 57 mandates communication of arrest grounds, and Section 60 provides for verification of records. In this case, the seizure occurred in a public place (airport), rendering Section 42 inapplicable, while no search or seizure was conducted on the accused's person, thus Section 50 was not attracted, and Section 57 compliance was satisfied through communication to a superior officer.
(B) Key legal principles include: applicability of seizure provisions depends on the location (public vs. private) and nature of the search; non-applicability of Section 42 in public places; irrelevance of Section 50 when no personal search occurs; and compliance with Section 57 is established by recording the arrest grounds and communicating them to an immediate superior officer.
Facts of the case:
The accused was apprehended at an airport while attempting to transport 5940 grams of heroin concealed in a suitcase. The seizure was effected by a public authority in a public place, an arrest memo indicating the offence was served on the accused, and the arresting officer noted that the arrest was immediately communicated to a superior officer. No personal search of the accused was conducted.
Findings of Court:
The trial court acquitted the appellant on grounds of non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The High Court convicted and sentenced the appellant. This appeal court found no merit in the contention, holding that Section 42 was irrelevant as the seizure was in a public place, Section 50 was not attracted as there was no personal search, and Section 57 requirements were met.
Issues:
Whether the non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act was material in a public seizure; whether the delay in arrest and non-examination of certain officers vitiated the prosecution; and whether the provisions of Section 57 were complied with.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where seizure occurs in a public place, Section 42 is inapplicable, and Section 50 is irrelevant in the absence of a personal search. Compliance with Section 57 is established by evidence of communication of arrest grounds to a superior officer, and mere technical non-compliance with non-applicable provisions does not invalidate the seizure or arrest.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the High Court conviction is upheld, and the appellant is to undergo the sentence of ten years imprisonment and pay the fine.
(A) The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 42, 50, 57, and 60 govern search, seizure, and arrest procedures in narcotics offences. Section 42 relates to searches in specific circumstances, Section 50 addresses searches of the person, Section 57 mandates communication of arrest grounds, and Section 60 provides for verification of records. In this case, the seizure occurred in a public place (airport), rendering Section 42 inapplicable, while no search or seizure was conducted on the accused's person, thus Section 50 was not attracted, and Section 57 compliance was satisfied through communication to a superior officer.
(B) Key legal principles include: applicability of seizure provisions depends on the location (public vs. private) and nature of the search; non-applicability of Section 42 in public places; irrelevance of Section 50 when no personal search occurs; and compliance with Section 57 is established by recording the arrest grounds and communicating them to an immediate superior officer.
Facts of the case:
The accused was apprehended at an airport while attempting to transport 5940 grams of heroin concealed in a suitcase. The seizure was effected by a public authority in a public place, an arrest memo indicating the offence was served on the accused, and the arresting officer noted that the arrest was immediately communicated to a superior officer. No personal search of the accused was conducted.
Findings of Court:
The trial court acquitted the appellant on grounds of non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. The High Court convicted and sentenced the appellant. This appeal court found no merit in the contention, holding that Section 42 was irrelevant as the seizure was in a public place, Section 50 was not attracted as there was no personal search, and Section 57 requirements were met.
Issues:
Whether the non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act was material in a public seizure; whether the delay in arrest and non-examination of certain officers vitiated the prosecution; and whether the provisions of Section 57 were complied with.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where seizure occurs in a public place, Section 42 is inapplicable, and Section 50 is irrelevant in the absence of a personal search. Compliance with Section 57 is established by evidence of communication of arrest grounds to a superior officer, and mere technical non-compliance with non-applicable provisions does not invalidate the seizure or arrest.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the High Court conviction is upheld, and the appellant is to undergo the sentence of ten years imprisonment and pay the fine.
ORDER
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, 5940 gms. of heroin concealed in the bottom of a suitcase alleged to be belonging to the appellant was recovered when he was attempting to transport the same from the International Airport, Chennai to Singapore. The recovery memo was prepared on 5th January, 1987 at 3.00 A.M. and thereafter the appellant was arrested on that day at 2.00 P.M. The trial court acquitted the appellant by holding that mandatory provisions like Section 42 and Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") had not been complied with.
3. In appeal, the High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default to undergo RI for one month.
4. In this appeal, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. He further states that there was delay in arresting the appellant which had not been explained and further that the provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature have not been complied with.
5. In the instant case, according to the documents on record and the evidence of the witnesses, the search and seizure took place at the Airport which is a public place. This being so, it is the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act which would be applicable. Further, as Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case, the seizure having been effected in a public place, the question of non-compliance, if any, of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is wholly irrelevant. Furthermore, in the Mahazar which was prepared, it is clearly stated that the seizure was made by PW-1. The Mahazar was no doubt drawn by one S. Jayanth. But, the contention of the learned senior counsel that prosecution version is vulnerable, because Jayanth has not been examined, is of no consequence because it is PW-1 who has conducted the seizure. With regard to the alleged non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, the High Court has rightly noted that PW-3 has stated that the arrest of the accused was revealed to his immediate superior officer, namely, the Deputy Director.
6. It was also contended by the learned senior counsel that the ground on which the appellant was arrested was not communicated to him. We find no merit in this because the arrest memo clearly indicates the offence stated to have been committed by the appellant under the NDPS Act. Further, the record also shows that copy of the arrest memo Exh. P-20 was received by the appellant.
7. In the instant case, no search or seizure was conducted on the person of the accused and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were hot attracted. The High Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion which it did.
8. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Narayanaswamy Ravishankar v. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2002(7) Supreme 122 : 2002(8) JT 27 : 2002(4) CCR 129 : 2002(84) ECC 1 : 2002 (4) All. Crl. L.R. 34 : (2002) 8 SCC 7 : 2002(4) Crimes 441.
00029