1999 JTR(SC) 1040
2000 10 SCC 380 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1494 ; 2000 KHC 4302 ; 1999 3 KLT(Online) 1168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T.Nanavati : S.N.Phukan
Kanhaiya Lal
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 894 of 1997
Date of Decision : 9/16/99
The mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act apply only to the search of the person of the accused and not to the search of a bag carried by the accused.
Act
Referred
:NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT
: S.50
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 50 - Search and seizure - Possession of narcotic drug - Requirement of Section 50 applies to search of the person of the accused - Where narcotic drug is found in a bag being carried by the accused and not on the person, the mandatory requirements of Section 50 are not applicable - Conviction held valid. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under the NDPS Act for being in possession of 1 kg of opium. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with during the search.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the opium was recovered from a bag carried by the appellant and not from the person of the appellant. Consequently, the case does not fall under the category where a search of the person was conducted, and the lower courts correctly held the appellant guilty.
Issues: Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act renders the conviction illegal when the contraband is found in a bag carried by the accused rather than on their person.
Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act pertain specifically to the search of the person of the accused; therefore, if the narcotic substance is found in a bag being carried by the accused, the provisions of Section 50 are not attracted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under the NDPS Act for being in possession of 1 kg of opium. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with during the search.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the opium was recovered from a bag carried by the appellant and not from the person of the appellant. Consequently, the case does not fall under the category where a search of the person was conducted, and the lower courts correctly held the appellant guilty.
Issues: Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act renders the conviction illegal when the contraband is found in a bag carried by the accused rather than on their person.
Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act pertain specifically to the search of the person of the accused; therefore, if the narcotic substance is found in a bag being carried by the accused, the provisions of Section 50 are not attracted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
G.T.NANAVATI, J.
(1) THE appellant has been convicted under the NDPS Act as he was found in possession of opium. The High Court has also confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.
(2) THE only point raised in this appeal is that the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the Act was not complied with in this case and therefore the conviction of the appellant is illegal. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention because 1 kg of opium was not found from the person of the appellant but it was found from a bag which was being carried by the appellant. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case where on search of the person of the accused, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was found. In our opinion, the courts below have correctly held that the appellant is guilty of committing the said offence. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.