9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1574 - SC - Indian LawsSmuggling - contraband material found in seven bags contained poppy husk - benefit of acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act - HELD THAT - Section 50 of the Act affords protection to a person in matters concerning personal search and stipulates various safeguards. It is only upon fulfilment of and strict adherence to said requirements that the contraband recovered pursuant to personal search of a person can be relied upon as a circumstance against the person. The law is thus well settled that an illicit Article seized from the person during personal search conducted in violation of the safe-guards provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot by itself be used as admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of contra-band. In the instant case, the personal search of the Accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as personal search was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Since in the present matter, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs. were found from the vehicle which was being driven by Accused-Baljinder Singh with the other Accused accompanying him, their presence and possession of the contraband material stood completely established - the acquittal recorded by the High Court, in our considered view, was not correct. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 2. Validity of evidence obtained from the search of the vehicle. 3. Acquittal by the High Court based on the above non-compliance. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act: The core issue revolved around whether the non-compliance with Section 50, which mandates that a person being searched must be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, would invalidate the entire search and subsequent recovery of contraband. The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 50 applies strictly to personal searches and not to searches of vehicles or containers. The Court referenced several precedents, including State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609, to emphasize that while the safeguards under Section 50 are mandatory for personal searches, they do not extend to searches of vehicles. 2. Validity of Evidence Obtained from the Search of the Vehicle: The Supreme Court examined whether the recovery of contraband from the vehicle could stand independently of the personal search. The Court noted that the personal search of the accused did not yield any contraband and thus, any non-compliance with Section 50 would not impact the validity of the vehicle search. The Court referenced Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 746, which clarified that Section 50 does not apply to searches of vehicles. The Court concluded that the recovery of seven bags of poppy husk from the vehicle was an independent factor and stood proved, irrespective of the non-compliance with Section 50 concerning personal search. 3. Acquittal by the High Court Based on Non-compliance: The High Court had acquitted the accused on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, as the High Court did not differentiate between the personal search and the vehicle search. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the conviction based solely on the non-compliance with Section 50, without considering the independent and valid recovery of contraband from the vehicle. The Court emphasized that the decision in Dilip v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 was not correct as it did not distinguish between personal search and vehicle search, thus conflicting with established law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal and restored the Trial Court's conviction of the accused under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. However, the Supreme Court reduced the substantive sentence from 12 years to 10 years, maintaining the fine and default sentence. The accused were given time to surrender, failing which they would be taken into custody. The compliance of this order was to be reported to the Court by a specified date.
|
