9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (2) TMI 530 - SC - CustomsWhether the alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter called the Act , was fatal to the prosecution? Held that - In the special facts of this case where the bag containing the incriminating article, though belonging to the petitioner, was out of his reach after it was checked in and was nowhere near the place where he was apprehended and searched although it was called for from the aircraft luggage compartment and brought to the customs counter for examination. Therefore, the question of compliance with Section 50 does not arise. The High Court was, therefore, right in the view that it took. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Violation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of whether the alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was fatal to the prosecution. The case involved a Nigerian national who was suspected by the Narcotics Control Bureau at the airport. The incriminating article, suspected to be heroin, was found in a bag that had been checked in and was not in the actual possession of the petitioner at the time of search. The prosecution did not inform the petitioner of his right to opt for being examined by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 50, which apply to the search of a person and not an article located at a distant place from the person being searched. The judgment clarified that when an article is not on the person of the accused but is brought to the place where the accused is found and incriminating articles are found, Section 50 requirements do not apply. The court distinguished previous cases where Section 50 was invoked based on the specific facts of those cases. Ultimately, the court held that in the present case, there was no violation of Section 50, and the High Court's view was correct. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of accordingly.
|
