2013 (2) TMI 837 - SC - Indian Laws

Search and Seizure Ruling: NDPS Act Section 50, 42 Compliance Not Required

The judgment concluded that the search and seizure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be on a person, not an object like a bag. Compliance with Section ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves the issues of breach of Sections 50 and 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) during the search and seizure of contraband substance by Customs Officers, as well as discrepancies in the investigation conducted by the Customs Officers.Details of the Judgment:Breach of Section 50 of the NDPS Act:The Trial Court and the High Court concluded that the search and seizure were conducted on the bag in possession of Accused No. 2, not on the person of the accused. The courts interpreted 'any person' under Section 50 to refer to a human being, not an inanimate object like a bag. The judgment cited precedents such as State of Haryana v. Suresh and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar to establish that Section 50 applies only to searches of persons, not articles. The judgment emphasized the need for an inextricable connection between the search of a person and the article for Section 50 to apply.Breach of Section 42 of the NDPS Act:The judgment clarified that compliance with Section 42 is not necessary when a search is conducted by a gazetted officer under Section 41(2) of the Act. Citing Union of India v. Satrohan, the judgment highlighted that a gazetted officer's search does not require compliance with Section 42. Precedents like M. Prabhulal v. The Assistant Director and Mohd. Hussain Farah v. Union of India were referenced to support the view that a gazetted officer's presence during a search exempts the need for compliance with Section 42.Discrepancies in Investigation:The judgment dismissed the alleged discrepancies in the investigation by Customs Officers as non-fatal to the proceedings. Despite the defense counsel pointing out contradictions, the court did not find them significant enough to impact the case.Sentencing Modification:Regarding the sentencing, the court modified the sentence of Accused No. 1 from 13 years to 10 years due to his age and health conditions. However, no remission was granted for Accused No. 2, and the judgment upheld the conviction and fine imposed on him. The appellants were directed to surrender after six weeks to serve the remaining sentence, with their bail bonds canceled.Conclusion:The Criminal Appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the judgment addressing the issues of breach of Sections 50 and 42 of the NDPS Act, discrepancies in the investigation, and sentencing modifications for the accused individuals.