2004 (2) TMI 663 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there was a contravention of Section 50 of the Act inasmuch as the offer made to the accused for searching his person in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and his declining the offer of the same was not corroborated by any independent witnesses? Held that - In the present case Section 50 does not apply at all to a situation where the search undertaken is not of the person of the accused but of something carried in his hand.. The mere fact that the officer concerned offered to have the search of the respondent-accused taken before a Gazetted Officer/Magistrate or that there were no independent witnesses to evidence this offer hardly makes any difference to the situation. In our view therefore the High Court erred in holding that the action of the police officers was contrary to Section 51 of the Act and giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused when there was no scope for raising such a doubt at all.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under NDPS Act - Contravention of Section 50 - Compliance with search procedures - Applicability of Section 50 to search of person or items carried - Compliance with standing orders for drawing samples - Judgment analysis.

1. Appeal against Acquittal under NDPS Act:
The State of Punjab appealed against the acquittal of the respondent under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The respondent was initially convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, but the High Court acquitted him based on the alleged contravention of Section 50 of the Act.

2. Contravention of Section 50 - Compliance with Search Procedures:
The primary issue revolved around the alleged contravention of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The High Court set aside the conviction based on the non-joining of independent witnesses during the search of the respondent-accused. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 50 applies only to searches of a person, not items carried by the accused.

3. Applicability of Section 50 to Search of Person or Items Carried:
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 50 does not apply when the search is not of the person but of something carried by the accused. Citing precedents, the court highlighted that compliance with Section 50 is not mandatory in such situations, especially when the accused's actions raise suspicion.

4. Compliance with Standing Orders for Drawing Samples:
The respondent argued that the trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with standing orders for drawing samples. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the standing orders under Section 52A(1) pertain to the disposal of seized drugs, not the search procedure. The court held that compliance with these orders was not necessary for the validity of the trial.

5. Judgment Analysis:
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, reinstating the conviction of the respondent-accused by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala. The court affirmed that the respondent had been rightly convicted and sentenced, directing prompt steps for his apprehension to serve the imposed sentence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the application of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing its relevance to searches of persons rather than items carried. The court also addressed the compliance with standing orders, highlighting their role in drug disposal, not search procedures. The decision reinstated the conviction of the respondent, emphasizing the validity of the trial proceedings.