9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Judgment Summary: The petitioner argued that there was a non-compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, rendering the conviction illegal. Citing a previous court decision, it was emphasized that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove compliance with this section. However, the High Court found that in the present case, there was indeed compliance with Section 50, as the accused was given the specified option and searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Another contention was that the accused should have been given the option to choose between being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, which was not provided in this case. The court clarified that Section 50 only requires the accused to choose where they would like to be searched, and it is the responsibility of the officer conducting the search to ensure it is done in the presence of the nearest available Gazetted Officer or Magistrate to avoid delays. The petitioner also referred to a previous order in a different case, highlighting a similar issue pending before a 3-Judge Bench. However, since there was no conflicting decision and the interpretation of the provision was clear, the court deemed it unnecessary to refer the case to a larger bench. Ultimately, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
|
