TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Due to Search Violation</h1> <h3>Kalayath Nassar Versus State of Kerala</h3> Kalayath Nassar Versus State of Kerala - 2000 AIR 733, 1999 (7) SCC 309, 1999 (9) JT 213 Issues:- Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985- Validity of search conducted by the police- Impact of the change in legal position post the Baldev Singh case on the present case- Conviction and sentence of the appellantCompliance with Section 50 of the Act:The case involved an appeal where the appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for 10 years and a fine. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The key issue raised was regarding the compliance with Section 50 of the Act during the search conducted by the police. The High Court had relied on a previous decision to hold that the requirements of Section 50 were not mandatory and non-compliance would not vitiate the search. However, a subsequent Constitution Bench decision in the Baldev Singh case clarified that a search conducted in violation of Section 50 would indeed vitiate the search and prejudice the accused if the requirements were not complied with.Validity of Search Conducted:The facts of the case revealed that the police received information about individuals carrying brown sugar in an auto-rickshaw. Upon stopping the vehicle, the police found the appellant and two others with brown sugar in their possession. It was admitted that the appellant was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The failure to communicate this right to the accused was considered noncompliance with the requirements of Section 50, as clarified by the Baldev Singh case. The search conducted in this case was deemed to be vitiated due to the non-compliance, leading to the conclusion that prejudice had been caused to the accused.Impact of Legal Position Change:The change in the legal position post the Baldev Singh case had a significant impact on the present case. The Baldev Singh case clarified that merely because the accused did not request the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate during the search did not absolve the police from informing the accused of this right. This change in legal interpretation led to the search conducted in the present case being considered vitiated, resulting in the evidence concerning the search being deemed unacceptable to prove the appellant's possession of the forbidden article.Conviction and Sentence of the Appellant:Given the non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act and the subsequent change in the legal position, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him. The Court directed the jail authorities to release the appellant unless he was required in any other case. The decision was based on the finding that the search conducted was vitiated, and there was no other evidence to sustain the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
