The Supreme Court has today reiterated the position of Law that Section 50 of NDPS Act is mandatory in nature and the non-compliance of Section 50 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital and the Sessions Court in a criminal appeal.
The Accused challenged his conviction made under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital and the High Court confirmed the decision of the Sessions Court. As against the same, Criminal appeal preferred before the Supreme Court of India, which reversed the order of conviction.
The Supreme Court has relied upon the decision in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, 2011(1) SCC 609 and held that the compliance under section 50 is mandatory.
The supreme Court held that
“What is the true scope and object of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, what are the duties, obligation and the powers conferred on the authorities under Section 50 and whether the compliance of requirements of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, remains no more res integra and are now settled by the two decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra).
Indeed, the latter Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) has settled the aforementioned questions after taking into considerations all previous case law on the subject.
Their Lordships have held in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 must be strictly complied with. It is held that it is imperative on the part of the Police Officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 to be searched only before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is held that it is equally mandatory on the part of the authorized officer to 11 make the suspect aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him and this requires a strict compliance. It is ruled that the suspect person may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him 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. (See also Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (2) SCC 67 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, 2011 (6) SCC 392)”
By applying the above preposition the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Read the Judgment here Sec. 50 NDPS Act
More Stories
The Apex Court on the Validity of Last Seen Theory and Forensic Evidence in Criminal Convictions
The Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to apply the principle of Liberal Construction in interpreting the terms of the Contract- SC Ruled
The Court is not bound to follow statute or rules of evidence while deciding the custody of a Child and the only consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child- Supreme Court Reiterated