9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 589 - SC - CustomsWhether the requirements of Section 50 have been met? Held that - The use of the expression substantial compliance was made in the background that the searching officer had Section 50 in mind and it was unaided by the interpretation placed on it by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh s case (1999 (7) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT). A line or a word in a judgment cannot be read in isolation or as if interpreting a statutory provision to impute a different meaning to the observations. Above being the position we find no substance in the plea that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. It was pleaded that the requirements of Section 57 have not been complied with. There was no material placed either before the trial Court or the High Court to substantiate such a plea. The grievance in this regard does not merit any consideration leave alone the impact of it on the guilt and conviction of the accused. Additionally it may also be noticed that while giving statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 the accused did not say that he was unaware of his rights or that he was misled on that account in any manner. On the contrary in general and vague manner it was only said that he did not know or he had no idea of the allegations. Though that by itself is not sufficient to convict accused in view of the procedural safeguards required to be observed by compliance with the requirements of Section 50 yet that is of some relevance in appreciating the grievance now sought to be ventilated. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment to warrant interference.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Compliance with Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: The key contention by the appellants was the alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act. The appellants argued that merely asking the accused if they wished to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate did not suffice. They emphasized that the accused should be made aware of their right, not just asked for their opinion. They cited the Constitution Bench decision in *State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh* and other cases to support their argument that strict compliance is necessary for penal statutes. The prosecution countered that the purpose of informing the accused is to ensure transparency and rule out false implication. They argued that there is no specific manner prescribed for this intimation and that the accused were informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. In analyzing the rival submissions, the judgment referred to observations made in *Baldev Singh's* case, highlighting that the empowered officer must inform the person of their right under Section 50, and failure to do so would render the recovery of illicit articles suspect and vitiate the conviction. The court noted that the specific form of information is not prescribed, and the substance of the intimation is what matters. The court found that in the present case, the accused were informed through a notice that they could be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and the accused responded in writing that they had no objection to being searched by the officer. This was deemed substantial compliance with Section 50, similar to the compliance found sufficient in *Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa*. The court concluded that the requirements of Section 50 were sufficiently met, and there was no substance in the plea of non-compliance. 2. Compliance with Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: The appellants also contended that the requirements of Section 57, which mandates reporting of the arrest and seizure to superior officers, were not complied with. However, the court noted that there was no material placed before the trial court or the High Court to substantiate this plea. The grievance regarding non-compliance with Section 57 did not merit consideration and had no impact on the guilt and conviction of the accused. Additionally, the court observed that during their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused did not claim ignorance of their rights or any misleading information. This was relevant in appreciating the grievance regarding Section 50 compliance. Conclusion: The court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
|
