2014 (3) TMI 1164 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of statute - recovery of charas - Chance recovery - State is in appeal against the acquittal of Sunil Kumar and the broad submission is that the recovery of charas from him was a chance recovery - whether the accidental or chance recovery of narcotic drugs during a personal or body search would attract the provisions of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985? - HELD THAT - In view of the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev Singh which endorsed the view taken in State Of Punjab v. Balbir Singh. 1994 (3) TMI 173 - SUPREME COURT the personal search of Sunil Kumar resulting in the recovery of contraband did not violate Section 50 of the Act - Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on para 25 in Balbir Singh which was also endorsed by the Constitution Bench. It was submitted that it is only after a chance or accidental recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance by any police officer that the provisions of the Act would come into play. It is then that the empowered officer should be informed and that empowered officer should thereafter proceed to investigate the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Meaning of chance recovery - HELD THAT - The expression chance recovery has not been defined anywhere and its plain and simple meaning seems to be a recovery made by chance or by accident or unexpectedly - In MOHINDER KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE PANAJI GOA 1995 (1) TMI 388 - SUPREME COURT this Court considered a chance recovery as one when a police officer stumbles on narcotic drugs when he makes a search - Applying this to the facts of the present appeal it is clear that the police officers were looking for passengers who were travelling ticketless and nothing more. They accidentally or unexpectedly came across drugs carried by a passenger. This can only be described as a recovery by chance since they were neither looking for drugs nor expecting to find drugs carried by anybody. Applicability of Section 50 of the Act - HELD THAT - It is true that Sunil Kumar behaved in a suspicious manner which resulted in his personal search being conducted after he disembarked from the bus. However there is no evidence to suggest that before he was asked to alight from the bus the police officers were aware that he was carrying a narcotic drug even though the Chamba area may be one where such drugs are easily available - We are not in agreement with the view of the High Court that since the police officers had a positive suspicion that Sunil Kumar was carrying some contraband therefore it could be said or assumed that they had reason to believe or prior information that he was carrying charas or some other narcotic substance and so before his personal or body search was conducted the provisions of section 50 of the Act ought to have been complied with. The recovery of charas on the body or personal search of Sunil Kumar was clearly a chance recovery and in view of Baldev Singh it was not necessary for the police officers to comply with the provisions of section 50 of the Act. The decision of the trial court convicting Sunil Kumar for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act is upheld - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the provisions of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in the context of accidental recovery of narcotic drugs during a personal search.
- Determination of whether the recovery of contraband was a chance recovery and its implications on the application of section 50 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Act:
The Supreme Court deliberated on the interpretation of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, focusing on whether accidental recovery of narcotic drugs during a personal search would trigger the provisions of this section. The Court referenced the Constitution Bench decision in State Of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, which clarified that section 50 would not be attracted in cases of chance recovery.

2. Facts and Background:
The case involved Sunil Kumar, who was found in possession of charas during a routine traffic check. The police officers, without prior information, discovered the contraband on his person during a random search. The trial court convicted Sunil Kumar, while the High Court acquitted him based on the interpretation that the recovery was not a chance recovery.

3. Definition of Chance Recovery:
The Court discussed the concept of "chance recovery," emphasizing that it denotes a discovery made unexpectedly or accidentally. Previous cases were cited to illustrate instances where police officers stumbled upon narcotic substances during searches, constituting chance recoveries. In this case, the recovery of charas from Sunil Kumar was deemed a chance recovery as the officers were not specifically searching for drugs.

4. Applicability of Section 50:
The Court analyzed the applicability of section 50 in the context of chance recovery. It was established that mere suspicion or positive belief by the police officers, without prior information or reason to believe, did not necessitate compliance with section 50. The recovery of charas from Sunil Kumar was considered a chance recovery, exempting the officers from the requirements of section 50.

5. Judgment and Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, upholding Sunil Kumar's conviction under Section 20 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the recovery of contraband was indeed a chance discovery, aligning with the precedent set in Baldev Singh. Sunil Kumar was directed to serve the remainder of his sentence, and the appeal was allowed.

By meticulously examining the provisions of section 50, defining chance recovery, and evaluating the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court clarified the application of the law in instances of accidental discovery of narcotic substances during personal searches.