Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)

State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999

Compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory and it is imperative to follow the requirement of the statute strictly, failing which the conviction cannot be sustained. The Accused is required to be informed of his/her right of seeking a search in presence of the Magistrate or the gazetted offcer and the law on this point is well settled by the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh1, where it is categorically held that it is imperative for the Investigating Offcer to inform the suspect, orally or in writing, about his right to be searched before a gazetted offcer or a Magistrate and failure to apprise about such a right would not vitiate the trial, but render the recovery of illicit article illegal and vitiate the conviction and sentence, if recorded only on the basis of possession of such illicit article/substance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 1329 - Full Document

Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 29 October, 2010

In the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat 2, another Constitution Bench has held it mandatory to make the suspect aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted offcer or a Magistrate and if so required by him, to ensure the compliance of the mandate. The strict compliance of the statutory provision like Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been held to be necessary in order to prevent abuse of the provisions of the NDPS Act, which confer wide powers on the empowered offcers and, hence, the safeguards provided by the legislature must be observed strictly. It is held that object of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act is to check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimise the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 555 - D K Jain - Full Document

Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 27 April, 2018

15. The learned counsel Mr.Abbas Delhiwala has also placed before me the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arif Khan alias Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand 3, which has 2 (2011) 1 SCC 609 3 (2018) 18 SCC 380 M.M.Salgaonkar ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2024 02:15:02 ::: 14/15 J APEAL-781-98.odt held that non-compliance of mandatory procedure under Section 50 is fatal to the prosecution case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 500 - A M Sapre - Full Document
1