9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (9) TMI 602 - SC - CustomsApplication of Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Held that - Appeal allowed. No infraction of the requirements of Section 50 of NDPS as when a bag was being carried on the accused s shoulder Section 50 has no application.
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding search of a bag carried by a person.
Analysis: The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act concerning the search of a bag carried by a person. The judge disagrees with the view that Section 50 applies to the search of a bag carried by an individual. Referring to previous cases like Baldev Singh's case, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of M.P., and Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, it is established that Section 50 is applicable only in the case of a personal search of a person and does not extend to the search of a bag carried by the accused. The judge emphasizes that there should be no distinction between searching a bag near a person and a bag carried by them. The judgment further cites cases like Saikou Jabbi v. State of Maharashtra and Birakishore Kar v. State of Orissa to support the position that Section 50 is not applicable when contraband is found in a bag not in the physical possession of the accused. The judge concludes that the High Court erred in holding that Section 50 was violated in the case at hand. Moreover, the judgment underscores that the language of Section 50 is clear in its application to personal searches of individuals and not searches of premises, vehicles, or articles. It is highlighted that the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case settled this interpretation, emphasizing that Section 50 comes into play only during a search by a person, distinct from searches of premises or containers. The judgment further cites recent cases like Madan LaL & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh to reinforce this interpretation. Consequently, the judge asserts that the High Court's decision regarding the noncompliance of Section 50 lacks substance and that the legislative purpose of the Act should not be frustrated by a strained interpretation of its provisions.
|
