Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh on 21 July, 1999
This
position was settled beyond doubt
by the Constitution Bench in
Baldev Singh case. Above being
the position, the contention
regarding non-compliance with
Section 50 of the Act is also
without any substance."
Section 15 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Pooran Mal Etc vs Director Of Inspection ... on 14 December, 1973
"14. The object, purpose and scope of
Section 50 of the Act was the subject-matter
SANDHU RUPINDER KAUR
2015.02.12 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal-S-No. 1013-SB of 2002 [ 14 ]
of discussion in a number of decisions of this
Court. The Constitution Bench of five Judges
of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev
Singh; (1999) 6 SCC 172 after exhaustive
consideration of the decisions of this Court in
Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of
Kerala; (1994) 6 SCC 569 and Pooran Mal v.
Director of Inspection (Investigation); (1974)
1 SCC 345 have concluded in para 57:
Madan Lal And Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 19 August, 2003
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. The Court has
observed:
Crl. Appeal No.99-Sb Of 2007 vs State Of Haryana on 11 February, 2009
Appeal-S-No. 1013-SB of 2002 [ 18 ]
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.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Pawan Kumar on 8 April, 2005
In view of the law laid down in Krishan Kumar's case supra,
the argument on behalf of the appellants with regard to non-
SANDHU RUPINDER KAUR
2015.02.12 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal-S-No. 1013-SB of 2002 [ 21 ]
compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act,
is untenable and is hereby rejected.
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Wazir Singh, Jbt Teacher And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 September, 1995
12. The next argument raised by Ld. counsel for the
appellants is that there is delay of 6 days in sending the
sample for analysis, which under the facts and
circumstances of the present case is fatal for the
prosecution especially when the same has to be sent within
72 hours of the search.The said argument though attractive
is bereft of any merit. Further, strengthening his arguments,
reliance has been placed by the Ld. Counsel on the case of
Gurjant Singh, supra in support of the said contention.
However, the said judgment cited by the Ld. Counsel is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case as the facts therein were peculiar to that case. In the
present case, it has come on record that the samples of
poppy straw sent for analysis were found intact. Exhibit PO
shows that on both the sample parcels, impression 'BS' were
found and analyst had satisfied himself about its intactness
and presence of morphine and Maconia acid in the
contraband. Ld. counsel has miserably failed to point out any
prejudice having been caused to the appellants due to delay
in sending the sample for analysis by the investigating
agency and thus accordingly I hold that the delay of 6 days
SANDHU RUPINDER KAUR
2015.02.12 12:42
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal-S-No. 1013-SB of 2002 [ 11 ]
in sending the samples of contraband for analysis to the
forensic laboratory is not fatal for the prosecution.