1. Recovery of opium from a female suspect — Trial for offence under Section 18, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Acquittal by trial court. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1018
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : K.T.Thomas
State Of Punjab
Versus
Surinder Rani Alias Chhindi
Case No. : 573 of 1989
Date of Decision : 9/14/99
Section 50(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is mandatory; a search of a female must be conducted only by another female, and this requirement cannot be waived or diluted even if no female officer is available at the time.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50(4) - Search of female - Mandatory requirement - No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female - Requirement cannot be diluted even on the ground that a female was not available at the time of search - Search conducted by male officer is vitiated. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
A female accused was intercepted on suspicion, and a search of her person led to the recovery of opium. The search was conducted by a male Sub-Inspector. It was admitted that although female constables were called for assistance, they arrived at the spot only one hour after the search had been completed. The trial court acquitted the accused, and the High Court declined to grant leave to appeal.
Findings of Court:
The search is vitiated due to the apparent violation of Section 50(4) of the Act, as the female accused was searched by a male officer.
Issues: Whether the search of a female accused by a male officer, in the absence of a female officer at the time of search, is permissible under Section 50(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement under Section 50(4) of the Act, which mandates that no female shall be searched by anyone except a female, is mandatory and cannot be diluted based on the unavailability of a female officer at the time of the search.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State's challenge against the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal the acquittal of the respondent. (Para 1 )
3. The search of a female by a male officer is vitiated as the mandatory requirement of Section 50(4) was not complied with. (Para 5 )
4. The requirement under Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act that no female shall be searched by anyone except a female is mandatory and absolute. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed; order of acquittal upheld. (Para 6 )
6. Is the requirement that a female be searched only by another female under the NDPS Act mandatory?
Yes, the requirement under Section 50(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is mandatory and cannot be diluted even on the ground that a female officer was not available at the time of the search. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What is the legal consequence of a male officer searching a female suspect in violation of Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act?
A search conducted by a male officer on a female suspect in violation of Section 50(4) of the Act is vitiated, which warrants the maintenance of an order of acquittal. (Para 5 , 6 )
K.T.THOMAS, J.
(1) IN this case the respondent, a lady, was tried for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the trial court acquitted her and the State sought for leave to file appeal. The High Court declined to grant the leave. It is against the said order of the High Court which is under challenge.
(2) RESPONDENT Surinder Rani was 22 years old when PW 2 Sub-Inspector Gurdip Singh intercepted her at about 10.30 a.m. on 20-8-1996 on suspicion. When her person was searched, the Sub-Inspector recovered a bag containing opium wrapped in a glazed paper. When it was weighed it was found to be 5.990 kg of opium.
(3) IT is not necessary to narrate the further facts in detail because the acquittal of the respondent cannot be disturbed on account of one crucial defect in the search alleged to have been conducted by the Sub-Inspector.
(4) SECTION 50(4) of the Act requires that "no female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female".
(5) THE said requirement in the sub-section is a mandatory and cannot be diluted even on the ground that a female was not available at the time of search. In the present case PW 2 Gurdip Singh has admitted in his examination-in-chief itself that the respondent was searched by him as then no female was present. In fact he called the assistance of two female constables. PW 2 admitted that those two female constables reached on the spot only one hour after the search was made. The search is therefore vitiated.
(6) IN view of the apparent violation of Section 50(4) of the Act the order of acquittal does not warrant any interference by the superior court. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
