2004 (9) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being carried on the accused s shoulder, Section 50 has no application.
Arijit Pasayat, JJ. JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by my learned and respected Brother that the opinion of Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat Laboratory was not to be excluded. However, I am unable to agree with the views as regards Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Baldev Singh's .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Section 50 shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. (See Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (JT 1999 (8) SC 293), The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (JT 1999 (4) SC 595), Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana (2001(3) SCC 28). The language of Section 50 is implicitly clear that the sea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tment, Section 50 was not applicable. Baldev's case (supra) was referred to hold that Section 50 in case of search comes into play only in case of search by a person as distinguished from search from any premises etc. The position was also highlighted recently in Madan LaL & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 AIR SCW 3969). Above being the position the High Court was justified in holding that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X