Important Point
The language of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 is implicitly clear that search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicles or articles.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’). The respondent was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Hissar. He found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 17 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.

2.Background facts giving rise to the trial are as follows :

On 3.1.1988, Ishwar Singh, Sub Inspector along with ASI Ram Kishan and 3 Constables was present at platform No.3 near Railway bridge. At about 8.30 p.m. one train came from the side of Sadalpur, Chandgi Ram PW was also with the police party at that time. Accused Mai Ram alighted from that train and started walking towards the engine. He was carrying one bag (Ex.P1) in his right hand. On suspicion, he was stopped. First of all, the Sub Inspector served him with a notice Ex. PA and told him that he (S.I.) suspected that he (accused) was carrying some contraband article like opium and Ganja etc. and if he (accused) wanted he could be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. But the accused gave in writing that he (S.I.) could search him himself and the accused also made an endorsement Ex.PA/1 to this effect. Then the Sub Inspector gave his search to the accused and there after searched bag (Ex.P1) carried by the accused which contained 1-1/2 kgs. of opium, without any licence or permit. The S.I. took 25 grams of opium as a sample out of the recovered opium and put the remaining opium in tin box (Ex.P.2). He then sealed the sample and tin-box (Ex.P2) with the seal of IS and the seal after use was given to Chandi Ram PW. The articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P.3 attested by the PWs. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was effected and a ticket Ex.P3 and a cash amount of Rs.45/- were also recovered from his possession which were taken into possession vide the recovery memo Ex.PC attested by the PWs and thumb marked by the accused. The accused was arrested after telling him the grounds of arrest. Ruea Ex.PD was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which formal F.I.R/ Ex. PD/1 was recorded. Rough site plan Ex.PE with correct marginal notes was prepared. Statement of witnesses was recorded. After returning to the Police Station, the case property was deposited with the MMC with the seals intact. The S.I. also telephonically informed the Dy. S.P. regarding seizure of opium. After the investigation, the accused was challaned by the Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh.

3.Learned Trial Judge found that the prosecution established its case and accordingly convicted and imposed sentence as aforesaid.

4.An appeal was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the appeal holding that there was violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. It was noted that elaborate reasons were not recorded about the suspicion about the accused being in possession of opium. It was also noted that the recovery was said to have been effected at the railway station and many independent witnesses would have been available. But only police officials were examined as PWs.1 and 2. There was no evidence to show that the seals were intact.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that Section 50 has no application because there was no question of personal search and the search was of bag which was carried by the accused. Additionally, there was no requirement in law to record the reasons for the suspicion. Further, the accused was apprehended when he got down at the railway station about 8.30 p.m. PWs 1 and 2 categorically stated in their evidence that no other person was willing to be a witness. Merely because the officials witnesses were examined, that cannot be a groun