1996 (2) TMI 530 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court clarifies Section 50 requirements in drug possession case involving Nigerian national

The Supreme Court of India held that the alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was not fatal to ... Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Search of person versus search of articles - Right to examination before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate - Female search requirement under Section 50(4) - Effect of non-compliance on prosecutionCompliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Search of person versus search of articles - Right to examination before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate - Effect of non-compliance on prosecution - Whether non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act was fatal to the prosecution where the incriminating article was in a checked-in bag not on the person at the time of search. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Section 50(1) applies to searches of the person and not to articles that are located elsewhere and are brought later for examination. The bag from which heroin was recovered had been checked in and was not in the petitioner's actual possession when he was searched; the prosecution did not contend that the petitioner had been informed of his option to be examined before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The statutory distinction is reinforced by Section 50(4) (female search requirement), which demonstrates that the provision governs searches of persons. Earlier decisions invoking Section 50 where incriminating items were found in an almirah or within the room turned on their particular facts and are not dispositive here. Applying these principles to the material facts, Section 50 was not attracted and its non-compliance was not fatal to the prosecution in this case. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5]Section 50 of the Act did not apply to the checked-in bag; non-compliance with Section 50 was not fatal and the petition was dismissed.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed; the High Court's view that Section 50 was not attracted is upheld. Writ Petition (Crl) No. D16529 of 1995 is permitted to be withdrawn and stands disposed of. Issues:Violation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.Analysis:The judgment by the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of whether the alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was fatal to the prosecution. The case involved a Nigerian national who was suspected by the Narcotics Control Bureau at the airport. The incriminating article, suspected to be heroin, was found in a bag that had been checked in and was not in the actual possession of the petitioner at the time of search. The prosecution did not inform the petitioner of his right to opt for being examined by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 50, which apply to the search of a person and not an article located at a distant place from the person being searched. The judgment clarified that when an article is not on the person of the accused but is brought to the place where the accused is found and incriminating articles are found, Section 50 requirements do not apply. The court distinguished previous cases where Section 50 was invoked based on the specific facts of those cases. Ultimately, the court held that in the present case, there was no violation of Section 50, and the High Court's view was correct.Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn and disposed of accordingly.