Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.23 seconds)Sanjeev Alias Sanju And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 November, 2015
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev and Anr. Vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh (supra) was considering an appeal at the instance of
the convict against the judgment of the High Court reversing the acquittal
rendered in favour of the appellant by the trial court. One of the reason the
10
(2011) 1 SCC 609
11
(2018) 18 SCC 380
12
(2013) 2 SCC 67
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRATIMA
Signing Date:11.11.2022
21:33:36
[8] Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/004767
trial court acquitted the appellant in that case was that the police did not give
any option to the appellant to be searched before the Magistrate or
competent Gazetted Officer. In paragraph No. 10 of the said decision the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that the arrest memo or other documents
do not reflect that any option or choice was given to the accused before their
personal search was undertaken. It has been held in that case that the
personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the
non-compliance of requirement of affording an option was one of the
reason which weighed with the trial court in disbelieving the case of the
prosecution. In that case the bag was carried to the vehicle. It is stated in
paragraph No. 3 of that decision that when the police party had searched the
other side of the Rora bridge, they found the appellant's therein sitting by
the side of bone fire and the bag was lying on the ground near them. As the
police put search light towards the direction of the appellants, they tried to
run away. The police party followed them and after having crossed a
distance of about 100 metre, they were nabbed. Thereafter, a bag was also
retrieved which was found to contain charas weighing about 1.5 kg and the
procedure for taking personal search of the accused was followed. Under the
aforesaid circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to the
conclusion that despite the personal search not resulting into a recovery of
any contraband material, there was non-compliance of requirement of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the order of conviction and sentence by
the High Court was set aside and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial
court was restored.
Sh. Akhilesh Bharti vs State on 20 January, 2020
18. This court in the case of Akhilesh Bharti Vs. State (supra) had an
occasion to consider various earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and of this Court with respect to provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act,
its compliance and result of its non-compliance.
Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2010
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh Chandubha
Jadeja v. State of Gujarat10 has held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act gives
an option to the empowered officer to take such person (suspect) either
before the nearest Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate but in order to impart
authenticity, transparency and creditworthiness to the entire proceedings, in
the first instance, an endeavour should be to produce the suspect before the
nearest Magistrate, who enjoys more confidence of the common man
compared to any other officer. It would not only add legitimacy to the search
proceedings, it may verily strengthen the prosecution as well.
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 27 April, 2018
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan
v. The State Of Uttarakhand11, while considering various other
pronouncements including the decision in the cases of Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan12 and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sukh Dev
Raj Sodhi13 has held that the suspects may or may not choose to exercise the
right provided to them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but so far as the
officer is concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act to apprise the suspect of his right to be searched before a
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 January, 2013
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan
v. The State Of Uttarakhand11, while considering various other
pronouncements including the decision in the cases of Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan12 and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sukh Dev
Raj Sodhi13 has held that the suspects may or may not choose to exercise the
right provided to them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but so far as the
officer is concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act to apprise the suspect of his right to be searched before a
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
Narcotics Central Bureau vs Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi on 20 May, 2011
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan
v. The State Of Uttarakhand11, while considering various other
pronouncements including the decision in the cases of Ashok Kumar
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan12 and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sukh Dev
Raj Sodhi13 has held that the suspects may or may not choose to exercise the
right provided to them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but so far as the
officer is concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act to apprise the suspect of his right to be searched before a
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
Mahinder Singh & Ors. vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi on 18 September, 2019
The appellant in the case of Mahinder Singh (supra)
was also acquitted. Paragraph 6 of the said decision is reproduced as under:-
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005
being carried by an accused
is subjected to search independently without there being any search of the
person of the appellant, the decision in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra)
would have application. However, in a case where the person of accused is
subjected to search along with the search of bag, article or container which
he holds in his hand, there is requirement of compliance of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act.