Section 50 NDPS | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained If Accused Were Not Informed About Their Right To Be Searched Before Magistrate/Gazetted Officer : Supreme court
The Supreme Court observed that if the accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer, it is a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.In this case, the accused were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Their appeals were dismissed by...
The Supreme Court observed that if the accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer, it is a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
In this case, the accused were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Their appeals were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The accused served the entire substantive sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a sentence for a period of six months in default of the payment of the fine.
In appeal before the Apex Court, it was contended that the appellants were not informed that they have a right to say that their body search should be conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
The court noted that there is a consent letter signed by the accused stating that they had voluntarily agreed to a body search.
"However, the appellants were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer. In view of the law laid down by a Constitution bench of this Court in Vijaysinh Jadeja vs State of Gujarat, it is crystal clear that there was a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act.", the court said.
In Vijaysinh Jadeja , the Constitution Bench had observed thus: Insofar as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict compliance. Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search.
Observing thus, the court said their conviction cannot be sustained.If the appellants continue to be in custody, they shall be forthwith set at liberty, the court ordered.
Mina Pun vs State of UP - 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 - 2023 INSC 776
NDPS Act, 1985 ; Section 50 - Accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer - There was a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Conviction cannot be sustained.