Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 36A in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Rajendra And Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2003
29. Section 50 of the Act applies in case of personal
search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a
container or a bag, or premises. In case, the recovery of the
contraband substance is made from a container being carried by
the individual, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would not
be attracted. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container,
under no circumstances, can be treated as body of a human
being. It is not possible to include these articles within the ambit
of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act. The
provisions of Section 50 of the Act will come into play only in the
case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage
like a bag, article or container, etc. which the accused may be
carrying (See Rajendra v. State of M.P : AIR 2004 SC 1103,
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar : AIR 2005 SC
2265, State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram : AIR 2005 SC
Crl.A.No.06/2020
20
3816, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 2011 SC 964,
Ram Swaroop v. State : AIR 2013 SC 2068 and Kulwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 2015 SC 2488).
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005
29. Section 50 of the Act applies in case of personal
search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a
container or a bag, or premises. In case, the recovery of the
contraband substance is made from a container being carried by
the individual, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would not
be attracted. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container,
under no circumstances, can be treated as body of a human
being. It is not possible to include these articles within the ambit
of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act. The
provisions of Section 50 of the Act will come into play only in the
case of personal search of the accused and not of some baggage
like a bag, article or container, etc. which the accused may be
carrying (See Rajendra v. State of M.P : AIR 2004 SC 1103,
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar : AIR 2005 SC
2265, State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram : AIR 2005 SC
Crl.A.No.06/2020
20
3816, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab: AIR 2011 SC 964,
Ram Swaroop v. State : AIR 2013 SC 2068 and Kulwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 2015 SC 2488).
Mohinder Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 14 August, 2018
In Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 2018
SC 3798, the Apex Court has observed as follows:
The State Of Punjab vs Baljinder Singh on 15 October, 2019
In the instant case also, no contraband substance was
recovered on conducting search of the body of the accused and
therefore, this Court is inclined to follow the decisions in
Baljinder Singh (supra) and Than Kunwar (supra) and hold
that the provision contained in Section 50(1) of the Act does not
apply to the facts of the case.
Than Kunwar vs The State Of Haryana on 2 March, 2020
In the instant case also, no contraband substance was
recovered on conducting search of the body of the accused and
therefore, this Court is inclined to follow the decisions in
Baljinder Singh (supra) and Than Kunwar (supra) and hold
that the provision contained in Section 50(1) of the Act does not
apply to the facts of the case.
The State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
We notice
however that the later decision draws inspiration
from the Constitution Bench decision in Baldev
Singh (supra). We also notice that this is not a
case where anything was recovered on the alleged
personal search. The recovery was effected from
the bag for which it is settled law that compliance
with Section 50 of the Act is not required".