2003 (12) TMI 54 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Narcotics Case

SAIKOU JABBI Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal and finding the accused guilty of offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and ... Whether there was any non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act as pleaded? Held 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. Above being the position the High Court was justified in holding that Section 50 had no application. So far as compliance with Section 42(2) is concerned, the statement of PW-1 to the effect that he had informed his superior remained unshaken and there was even no cross-examination to point out any falsity in the said statement. The note of intelligence information was placed on record vide Exh. 16-A to substantiate the testimony of PW-1. That being so the High Court was justified in holding that the provisions of Section 42(2) had been complied with. Coming to the plea regarding non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent-State, there was not even any argument advanced on that score before the trial Court and the High Court. Even otherwise also the evidence of the investigating officer about safe custody of the contraband articles have not been challenged or shaken in the cross-examination. That being the position we are not inclined to accept the plea that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 55 of the Act. Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).2. Compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act.3. Compliance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act:The appellant was apprehended for carrying heroin in his baggage. The trial court found non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that the person to be searched must be informed of their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. However, the High Court held that Section 50 was not applicable as it pertains to the personal search of a person, not the search of a vehicle, container, bag, or premises. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, citing precedents such as Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra, The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, and Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana. The Court concluded that the contraband was found in the suitcase, not through a personal search of the accused, thus Section 50 was not applicable.2. Compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act:The trial court found that the requirement to submit the gist of information to a higher officer immediately, as per Section 42(2), was not established. However, the High Court found compliance with this provision. The Supreme Court noted that PW-1, the intelligence officer, had testified about informing his superior and reducing the information to writing, which was unchallenged. The note of intelligence information was placed on record (Exh. 16-A), substantiating PW-1's testimony. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding of compliance with Section 42(2).3. Compliance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act:The appellant argued that the seized articles were sent for chemical examination in violation of Section 55, which mandates that the officer in charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody all articles seized under the Act. The High Court did not find merit in this argument, and the Supreme Court agreed, noting that the issue was not raised before the trial court or the High Court. Furthermore, the investigating officer's testimony about the safe custody of the contraband was unchallenged. Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the plea of non-compliance with Section 55.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the accused was guilty of offenses under the NDPS Act and the Customs Act. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding non-compliance with Sections 50, 42(2), and 55 of the NDPS Act.