Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.73 seconds)Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Madan Lal And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2003
“15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the provision of Section 50 of the Act would also apply,
while searching the bag, briefcase, etc. carried by the person
and its non-compliance would be fatal to the proceedings
initiated under the Act. We find no merit in the contention of
6 [(2010) 3 SCC 746]
11
the learned counsel. It requires to be noticed that the
question of compliance or non-compliance with Section 50
of the NDPS Act is relevant only where search of a person is
involved and the said section is not applicable nor attracted
where no search of a person is involved. Search and
recovery from a bag, briefcase, container, etc. does not
come within the ambit of Section 50 of the NDPS Act,
because firstly, Section 50 expressly speaks of search of
person only. Secondly, the section speaks of taking of the
person to be searched by the gazetted officer or a Magistrate
for the purpose of search. Thirdly, this issue in our
considered opinion is no more res integra in view of the
observations made by this Court in Madan Lal v. State of
H.P. [(2003) 7 SCC 465].
Kalem Tumba vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 16 September, 1999
471, para 16)
“16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only 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 (see
Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra[(1999) 8 SCC 257],
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] and
Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana [(2001) 3 SCC 28]). The
language of Section 50 is implicitly clear that the search has
to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search of
premises, vehicles or articles. This position was settled
beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh
case1. Above being the position, the contention regarding
non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act is also without
any substance.”
The State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
471, para 16)
“16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only 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 (see
Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra[(1999) 8 SCC 257],
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] and
Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana [(2001) 3 SCC 28]). The
language of Section 50 is implicitly clear that the search has
to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search of
premises, vehicles or articles. This position was settled
beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh
case1. Above being the position, the contention regarding
non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act is also without
any substance.”
Section 41 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Dilip & Anr vs State Of M.P on 24 November, 2006
9. Ms. Pallavi Singh, learned Advocate also relied upon the decision
of this Court in Dilip & Anr vs State of M.P. 3 to submit that once there was
non-compliance of the requirements of Section 50, the benefit ought to be
extended in favour of the accused.