Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.36 seconds)Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 41 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development ... on 22 January, 2009
In the case of K. Mohanan v. State of Kerala (2010) 10
SCC 222 another Bench of this Court while following
Baldev Singh's case (supra) stated in unambiguous terms that
merely asking the accused whether he wished to be searched
before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, without informing
him that he enjoyed a right under law in this behalf, would
not satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act.
Joseph Fernandez vs State Of Goa on 5 October, 1999
21. The High Court while relying upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) and rejecting the
theory of substantial compliance, which had been suggested
in the case of Joseph Fernandez (supra), found that the
intimation did not satisfy the provisions of Section 50 of the
Act. The Court reasoned that the expression 'duly' used in
Section 50 of the Act connotes not 'substantial' but 'exact and
definite compliance'. Vide Ex. PW-6/A, the Appellant was
informed that a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate could be
arranged for taking his search, if he so required. This
intimation could not be treated as communicating to the
Appellant that he had a right under law, to be searched before
the said authorities. As the recovery itself was illegal, the
conviction and sentence has to be set aside.
Union Of India vs Satrohan on 14 July, 2008
In the case of Union of India v. Satrohan (2008) 8 SCC
313 though the Court was not directly concerned with the
interpretation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, the
Court held that Section 42(2) of the Act was mandatory. It
also held that search under Section 41(1) of the Act would
not attract compliance to the provisions of Section 50 of the
Act.
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2010
This question to some extent has been dealt with by the
Constitution Bench in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha
Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja'). As this question
does not arise for consideration before us in the present case,
we do not consider it necessary to deliberate on this aspect in
any further detail.