Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 6 October, 2023
assailed the judgment of conviction, mainly on the
ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as,
Ranjan Kumar Chadha versus State of Himachal
of
Pradesh, 2023 INSC 878, has elaborately discussed the
provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and after
rt
discussing the entire law, on this point, has concluded
that obligation under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is
mandatory and failure to comply with the same would
render the recovery of the illicit article suspicious and
vitiate the conviction. Relevant paragraphs 45 to 56, 63
and 64 of the judgment are reproduced as under:
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
particularly for offences under the NDPS Act, are
critical means of obtaining evidence of possession
and it is, therefore, necessary that the safeguards
provided in Section 50 of the Act are observed
scrupulously. The duty to inform the suspect of his
right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted
of
officer or a Magistrate is a necessary sequence for
enabling the person concerned to exercise that
right under Section 50 because after Maneka
rt
Gandhi v. Union of India it is no longer permissible
to contend that the right to personal liberty can be
curtailed even temporarily, by a procedure which is
not "reasonable, fair and just" and when a statute
itself provides for a "just" procedure, it must be
honoured. Conducting a search under Section 50,
without intimating to the suspect that he has a
right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a
Magistrate, would be violative of the "reasonable,
fair and just procedure" and the safeguard
contained in Section 50 would be rendered illusory,
otiose and meaningless. Procedure based on
systematic and unconscionable violation of law by
the officials responsible for the enforcement of law,
cannot be considered to be a "fair", just or
reasonable procedure. We are not persuaded to
agree that reading into Section 50, the existence of
a duty on the part of the empowered officer, to
intimate to the suspect, about the existence of his
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:38:35 :::CIS
20
right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted
officer or a Magistrate, if he so requires, would
place any premium on ignorance of the law. The
argument loses sight of a clear distinction between
ignorance of the law and ignorance of the right to a
.
Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection ... on 14 December, 1973
(9) That the judgment in Pooran Mal v. Director of
Inspection (Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345,
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:38:35 :::CIS
28
cannot be understood to have laid down that an
illicit article seized during a search of a person, on
prior information, conducted in violation of the
provisions of Section 50 of the Act, can by itself be
used as evidence of unlawful possession of the
.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Shri Pirthi Chand And Anr on 30 November, 1995
illicit article on the person from whom the
contraband has been seized during the illegal
search; (10) That the judgment in Ali Mustaffa's
case correctly interprets and distinguishes the
judgment in Pooran Mal's case and the broad
observations made in State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand,
of
(1996) 2 SCC 37, and State of Punjab v. Jasbir
Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 288, case are not in tune
with the correct exposition of law as laid down
rt in Pooran Mal's case."
State Of Punjab vs Jasbir Singh on 28 November, 1995
illicit article on the person from whom the
contraband has been seized during the illegal
search; (10) That the judgment in Ali Mustaffa's
case correctly interprets and distinguishes the
judgment in Pooran Mal's case and the broad
observations made in State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand,
of
(1996) 2 SCC 37, and State of Punjab v. Jasbir
Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 288, case are not in tune
with the correct exposition of law as laid down
rt in Pooran Mal's case."
Manohar Lal Jat vs The State Of Rajasthan on 26 November, 2020
50. This Court in a number of cases has dealt with this
very aspect and laid down the principles with respect to
when Section 50 be said to be complied with. This Court
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:38:35 :::CIS
29
in Manohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996)
11 SCC 391, held that Section 50 only requires the
option to be given to the accused to say whether he
would like to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate. The relevant observations made
.