1. Seizure of narcotics from a vehicle driven by the accused — Applicability of Section 50, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 regarding physical possession. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1196
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : K.T.Thomas
Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri
Versus
State Of Gujarat
Case No. : 78 of 1992
Date of Decision : 10/12/99
Important Points
The court referred the question of whether the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act apply to contraband found in a vehicle driven by the accused to a larger three-judge bench due to conflicting judicial interpretations of "search of the person."
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Search of person - Seizure of contraband from vehicle - Whether mandatory requirements of Section 50 apply when contraband is found in a vehicle driven by the accused - Conflict between decisions of a two-judge bench and a three-judge bench regarding whether items found in a bag on a vehicle constitute a search of the person - Question referred to a larger Bench. (Paras 1, 3)
Facts of the case:
Four gunny bags of charas were seized by authorities from an autorickshaw driven by the accused. A plea was raised on the strength of Section 50 of the Act, questioning whether the contraband was in the physical possession of the accused, which would trigger the mandatory requirements of the said provision.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that a two-judge bench had previously held that contraband found in a bag hanging on a scooter was not a search of the person. However, it was contended that such observations were inconsistent with the findings of a three-judge bench.
Issues: Whether the search of the person envisaged in Section 50 of the Act encompasses gunny bags found inside an autorickshaw driven by the accused, so as to attract the mandatory requirements of that provision.
Ratio Decidendi: Since there is a conflict between the observations of a two-judge bench and a three-judge bench regarding the scope of "search of the person" under Section 50, the legal question must be considered by a larger Bench of three Judges.
Result: Matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for orders.
Facts of the case:
Four gunny bags of charas were seized by authorities from an autorickshaw driven by the accused. A plea was raised on the strength of Section 50 of the Act, questioning whether the contraband was in the physical possession of the accused, which would trigger the mandatory requirements of the said provision.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that a two-judge bench had previously held that contraband found in a bag hanging on a scooter was not a search of the person. However, it was contended that such observations were inconsistent with the findings of a three-judge bench.
Issues: Whether the search of the person envisaged in Section 50 of the Act encompasses gunny bags found inside an autorickshaw driven by the accused, so as to attract the mandatory requirements of that provision.
Ratio Decidendi: Since there is a conflict between the observations of a two-judge bench and a three-judge bench regarding the scope of "search of the person" under Section 50, the legal question must be considered by a larger Bench of three Judges.
Result: Matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for orders.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention regarding inconsistency between a two-judge bench and a three-judge bench on the interpretation of search of a person under the NDPS Act. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that the scope of search of a person under Section 50 regarding items in a vehicle requires consideration by a larger bench. (Para 3 )
4. The question of whether search of a person under Section 50 includes items in a vehicle driven by the accused is a matter for a larger bench. (Para 3 )
5. Matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for orders. (Para 4 )
6. Does the search of a person under Section 50 of the NDPS Act include items found in a vehicle driven by the accused?
The court held that whether the search of the person envisaged in Section 50 of the Act encompasses items found inside a vehicle driven by the accused is a question to be considered by a larger bench of three judges. (Para 3 )
(1) IN this case the fact situation as found by the High Court is this: Four gunny bags of charas were seized by the authorities from the autorickshaw driven by the accused himself. When a plea is made on the strength of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the focal question is whether the gunny bags were in the physical possession of the accused or not. If they were in the physical possession of the accused the mandate of Section 50 would apply. While considering this aspect our attention has been drawn to the decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court dated 15-9-1999 (in Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 1997 ) wherein the following observations have been made:
"WE do not find any substance in this contention as the charas was not found on the person of the appellants but it was found kept in a bag which was hanging on the scooter on which they were riding. Therefore, this was not a case where the person of the accused was searched and from his person narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was found. The correct position of the law on this point has been stated by this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
(2) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the aforesaid observations are not consistent with the observations made by the three- Judge Bench in Namdi Francis Nwazor v. Union of India.
(3) AFTER considering the arguments for some time we are of the opinion that the question whether search of the person envisaged in Section 50 of the Act would encompass the gunny bags found inside the autorickshaw driven by the accused, so as to attract the mandatory requirements of that provision can be considered by a larger Bench of three Judges.
(4) WE, therefore, direct the Registry to place the matter for orders of the Honble the Chief Justice of India.
