1. Possession of narcotics in an occupied hotel room — Search and seizure under Section 43, NDPS Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1161
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.T.Nanavati : R.P.Sethi
Ganga Bahadur Thapa
Versus
State Of Goa
Case No. : 774 of 1996
Date of Decision : 10/7/99
Important Points
A hotel room occupied by a customer remains a 'public place' under Section 43 of the NDPS Act, as the hotel is intended for public use, and temporary occupancy does not transform it into private property.
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS)
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 43 - Definition of 'public place' - Whether a room in a hotel occupied by a customer constitutes a public place - Explanation to Section 43 clarifies that 'public place' includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public - A hotel is intended for use by the public; mere occupation of a room by a customer does not change the nature of the hotel to a private property - Such a room continues to be a public place as contemplated under the Act. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant had booked and occupied a room in a hotel. Upon being asked by officers to open the room, a search was conducted, and a quantity of charas was recovered from a bag containing the appellant's clothes. The chemical analyser's report confirmed the substance as charas.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the hotel was intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. The fact that a customer was allowed to occupy a room did not cause the hotel to cease being a public place or become the private property of the occupier.
Issues: Whether a room in a hotel occupied by a customer can be said to be a public place for the purpose of Section 43 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A hotel room occupied by a customer remains a public place under Section 43 of the NDPS Act because the hotel itself is intended for use by or accessible to the public, and temporary occupation does not convert it into private property.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The appellant had booked and occupied a room in a hotel. Upon being asked by officers to open the room, a search was conducted, and a quantity of charas was recovered from a bag containing the appellant's clothes. The chemical analyser's report confirmed the substance as charas.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the hotel was intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. The fact that a customer was allowed to occupy a room did not cause the hotel to cease being a public place or become the private property of the occupier.
Issues: Whether a room in a hotel occupied by a customer can be said to be a public place for the purpose of Section 43 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A hotel room occupied by a customer remains a public place under Section 43 of the NDPS Act because the hotel itself is intended for use by or accessible to the public, and temporary occupation does not convert it into private property.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act
-
search and seizure
- public place (Para 3)
-
search and seizure
-
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act
Table of Contents
2. Whether a hotel room occupied by a customer ceases to be a public place for the purpose of search and seizure under Section 43, NDPS Act. (Para 3 )
3. A hotel remains a public place under Section 43, NDPS Act, regardless of whether a room is occupied by a customer, as it is intended for public use. (Para 3 )
4. An occupied hotel room does not cease to be a public place under Section 43, NDPS Act, as it remains a hotel and not the private property of the occupier. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. Does a hotel room occupied by a customer qualify as a public place under Section 43 of the NDPS Act?
Yes. Under the explanation to Section 43, a public place includes hotels or places intended for use by or accessible to the public. Occupation by a customer does not change the nature of the hotel or convert the room into the private property of the occupier. (Para 3 )
7. Does the search of an occupied hotel room require the recording of grounds under Section 42 of the NDPS Act?
No, provided the room is considered a public place under Section 43. Since an occupied hotel room remains a public place, the search is legal even if grounds under Section 42 were not recorded. (Para 3 )
G.T.NANAVATI, J.
(1) THE only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a room in a hotel occupied by a customer can be said to be a public place for the purpose of Section 43 of the NDPS Act.
(2) THE evidence clearly establishes that the appellant had booked a room in Hotel Safari and that he was in occupation thereof. The evidence also establishes that on 1-12-1991 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant was in possession of the key of that room and with that key he had opened the room, when he was called upon by the officers of the Narcotics Bureau to do so. It was from the bag pointed out by him that charas weighing 2.860 kg was found. The bag had contained his clothes also. It is also proved by the report of the chemical analyser that the material which was thus seized from the possession of the appellant was charas.
(3) THE only contention raised before us was that a room in a hotel when it is occupied by a customer cannot be said to be a public place as no one has thereafter a right to enter that room except the said occupier and the owner of that room. We do not find any substance in this contention. The explanation to Section 43 makes it clear that for the purpose of that section public place includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. It is not in dispute that the said hotel was intended for use by, or accessible to, the public. Merely because a customer is allowed to occupy a room in the hotel, it would not cease to be a hotel. Even after occupation by a customer it would remain a hotel and not a private property of the occupier. It would not cease to be a public place as contemplated by Section 43. For that reason, we cannot accept the contention that because the raid was made after sunset and no grounds as contemplated by Section 42 were recorded, the search was illegal and the evidence regarding recovery pursuant to that illegal search was not admissible.
(4) AS we do not find any substance in the only contention raised in this appeal, it is dismissed.
