1995 (11) TMI 432 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Narcotics Case, Emphasizes Rights During Search

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal in a case involving illegal possession of poppy husk, emphasizing compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs ... - Issues involved: Compliance with Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The Supreme Court considered the evidence in a case involving the illegal possession of poppy husk without a permit or license. The Court noted the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Act, emphasizing that informing the offender of their right to have the search conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate is crucial. Failure to comply with this requirement does not render the evidence inadmissible, but each case must be assessed individually. The Additional Sessions Judge's decision to not accept the evidence due to lack of written consent from the accused was deemed reasonable, leading to the confirmation of the acquittal despite the High Court's inadequate handling of the case.Details of the Judgment:The Supreme Court, after granting leave, reviewed the case involving the possession of poppy husk without authorization. Despite the significant quantity of contraband involved, the Court upheld the acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court highlighted the importance of complying with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which safeguards the rights of the offender during search and seizure operations. The failure to inform the accused of their rights as per the section led to the confirmation of the acquittal, emphasizing that evidence collected in violation of statutory provisions does not automatically become inadmissible. The Court stressed that each case must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances, and in this instance, the Additional Sessions Judge's decision to not accept the evidence without written consent from the accused was deemed justified.The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the understanding that the evidence collected during the investigation, despite the breach of mandatory requirements, did not warrant the reversal of the acquittal. The Court reiterated the significance of complying with Section 50 of the Act to protect the rights of the accused during search and seizure procedures. The Additional Sessions Judge's refusal to accept the evidence due to the absence of written consent from the accused was considered reasonable in the context of the case, leading to the affirmation of the acquittal. The Court expressed disappointment in the High Court's handling of the matter but ultimately upheld the decision of the lower court based on the principles of law and the specific facts of the case.