1. Appeals against High Court direction to proceed under Section 58, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, following acquittal due to procedural infractions. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1356
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Ravindra B.Dixit
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 1237 of 1999, 1238 of 1999
Date of Decision : 11/18/99
Proceedings under Section 58 of the NDPS Act, 1985, require a finding that the search, seizure, or arrest was vexatious or unnecessary; a mere procedural infraction of Sections 42 and 50 is insufficient to satisfy this condition.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 58 - Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest - Recourse to this provision can be taken only when the court concludes that the entry, search, seizure or arrest was either vexatious or unnecessary (Para 4).
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 42 and 50 - Mere infraction of these sections does not justify the conclusion that the arrest or seizure was vexatious or unnecessary - Condition precedent for application of Section 58 must be satisfied (Para 5).
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed against the direction of the High Court to proceed against the appellants under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, after an order of acquittal was recorded on the ground that there had been an infraction of Section 42 and Section 50 of the said Act.
Findings of Court:
The impugned direction of the High Court was held to be without jurisdiction as the condition precedent for the application of Section 58 was found to be lacking.
Issues: Whether a mere infraction of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 58 for vexatious entry, search, seizure, or arrest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for Section 58 to apply, the court must conclude that the entry, search, seizure, or arrest was either vexatious or unnecessary. The mere fact that there has been an infraction of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act does not allow the court to jump to the conclusion that the action was vexatious or unnecessary.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether procedural infractions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, justify proceedings under Section 58. (Para 2 )
3. Section 58 requires a finding that the action was vexatious or unnecessary; procedural infractions alone do not justify such a conclusion. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Recourse to Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, requires a specific finding that the action was vexatious or unnecessary. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeals allowed and the High Court's direction to proceed under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, set aside. (Para 5 )
6. When can proceedings be initiated under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?
Proceedings under Section 58 can be initiated only when the court concludes that the entry, search, seizure, or arrest was either vexatious or unnecessary. (Para 4 )
7. Does an infraction of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, automatically justify action under Section 58?
No, the mere fact that there has been an infraction of Sections 42 and 50 does not lead to the conclusion that the arrest or seizure was vexatious or unnecessary. (Para 5 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THESE appeals by special leave have been filed against the direction of the High Court to proceed against the appellant-applicants under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after recording an order of acquittal on the ground that there has been an infraction of Section 42 and Section 50 of the said Act.
(3) SECTION 58 of the said Act reads thus:
"58. Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest.
(1) Any person empowered under Section 42 or Section 43 or Section 44 who
(A) without reasonable ground of suspicion enters or searches, or causes to be entered or searched, any building, conveyance or place;
(B) vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any person on the pretence of seizing or searching for any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or other article liable to be confiscated under this Act, or of seizing any document or other article liable to be seized under Section 42, Section 43 or Section 44; or
(C) vexatiously and unnecessarily detains, searches or arrests any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Any person wilfully and maliciously giving false information and so causing an arrest or a search being made under this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both."
(4) A bare reading of the aforesaid section would indicate that recourse can be taken to the said provision only when the court comes to the conclusion that the entry, search, seizure or arrest was either vexatious or unnecessary as is apparent from sub-section (l)(b) of Section 58.
(5) FROM the mere fact that there has been an infraction of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, the Court cannot jump to the conclusion that the arrest or seizure in question was either vexatious or unnecessary. In that view of the matter, the impugned direction of the High Court must be held to be without jurisdiction as the condition precedent for application of Section 58 has been found to be lacking. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned direction and allow these appeals accordingly.
