SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 1185

(BEFORE H.K. SEMA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.)
STATE OF HARYANA - Appellant;
Versus
RAJBIR SINGH - Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 1999,
Decided on September 14, 2005

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 50 and 15 - Procedure under Section 50- 13 kg 500 gm of poppy husk recovered from a rexine bag carried by the accused - Accused convicted under S. 15 of the Act and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh- - High Court set aside the conviction solely on the ground that procedure under Section 50 had not been complied with - Held if the search is conducted of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container which is being carried by the accused, is not a search of the person, therefore, Section 50 would not apply- Matter remanded back to High Court for decision afresh. [Paras 1 and 2]

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed by the State of Haryana challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 8-7-1998 setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge. The respondent herein was convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh; in « default RI for two years. The recovery of 13 kg and 500 gm of poppy husk was made in a search of rexine bag carried by the accused. The High Court has set aside the conviction solely on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with.

2. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in which one of us (Justice G.P. Mathur) was a party in State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar) had held that if the search is conducted of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container which is being carried by the accused is not a search of the person, therefore, Section 50 would not apply in such a case. The High Court has not considered the evidence on record. This being the position of the law, we set aside the order of the High Court and remand the case back to the High Court to decide the case afresh in accordance with law, after the appreciation of the evidence on record.

3. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top