IMPORTANT POINT
Search of accused – When there are several accused and when a personal search is sought to be made, they must individually be informed of their right to be searched before Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and a joint communication of said right is not proper compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act.

Headnote:
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 50 – Search of accused – It is mandatory to inform or make suspect aware of his right to be searched before officers named in Section 50 of Act for valid compliance of said Section and mere asking him whether he would like to be searched before said officers is not valid compliance of said Section – When there are several accused and when a personal search is sought to be made, they must individually be informed of their right to be searched before Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and a joint communication of said right is not proper compliance with Section 50 of Act – Mere making an enquiry by asking accused whether accused would like to be searched before Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer is also not proper compliance with requirement under Section 50 of Act – All that is required is to inform accused of their right to be searched before Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer either orally or in writing for proper compliance of Section 50 of Act. (Paras 9, 10 and 14)
(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) r/w. Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 50 – Seizure of Ganja – Conviction and sentence – Joint communication was made to accused stating that they would be searched before Magistrate and there was no individual communication to each of accused – Section 50 of Act is not properly complied with – However, Section 50 only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises – When contraband which is incriminating material was not recovered during personal search of accused made under Section 50 of Act and contraband was recovered from vehicle, then, even though, personal search made is found to be not valid under law in view of improper compliance of Section 50 of Act, it would not make seizure of contraband made from vehicle bad in law or make finding of conviction and punishment imposed based on recovery of contraband made from vehicle bad in law and same would not be vitiated – Accused are not entitled to acquittal on that ground – Recovery of contraband from possession of accused in van at their instance is proved with acceptable legal evidence and it is fully established in this case – It is not the case of accused that prosecution has meddled with samples or that seals were not intact or that procedure has been not followed in protecting seized substance or was not stored properly – Impugned judgment of conviction of trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and also legal position – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 9, 17, 18, 25, 29, 36 and 37)
Result: Criminal Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

These three criminal appeals arise out of the judgment, dated 20.12.2017, passed in NDPS Sessions Case No.138 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, whereby the appellants, who are A-1, A-3 and A-4 in the said case, were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, “the Act”) and were convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 Lakh each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the aforesaid offence.

2. As these three appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction, the three appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:—

(a) On 03.01.2016, PW.4 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta Police Station, received reliable information regarding illegal transportation of ganja in a vehicle. Immediately, after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram, to conduct raid, he secured the presence of the mediators and along with the mediators and the constables, he reached N.H.16 road opposite to Ananthalakshmi Engineering Works, outskirts of Ramavaram Village of Jaggampeta Mandal, and conducted a vehicle check in the presence of the mediators, who are PW.1 the V.R.O., and another person by name Syama Sundaram. At that time, they noticed one van bearing Registration No.AP 20 Y 0129 coming towards them. The persons travelling in the said van tried to escape after seeing the police. The Police apprehended them. The appellants, who are A-1, A-3 and A-4 were found in the said van. On interrogation by the police, they revealed their identity and stated that they are transporting ganja in the said vehicle. A mediators report, which is exhibited as Ex.P2, was drafted in the presence of the mediators at that time. PW.4 the Sub-Inspector of Police informed them that they would be searched before the Mandal Executive Magistrate and they agreed for the same. Accordingly, Ex.P4 requisition was given to PW.2, who is the Tahsildar of Jaggampeta, requiring her presence at the scene of offence for the purpose of conducting search. Accordingly, she reached the scene of offence. Thereafter, the van was searched in the presence of PW.1 V.R.O., PW.2 Tahsildar and the other mediator. A-1, A-3 and A-4 opened the screws in the cabin of the van and about five gunny bags and seven plastic bags containing ganja were found in the said van. Each bag was found to be weighing 20 K.Gs. and each bag again contains 10 packets weighing 2.00 K.Gs. each. Police got the said bags weighed by PW.3, who is a vegetable vendor. Thereafter, police collected samples of 100 grams of two in number from one packet only from each bag. Thus, 24 samples were collected. The total weight of ganja was found to be 240 K.Gs. Samples were kept in polythene covers and wrapped with paper covers. Identity slips were affixed containing signatures of mediators, the Tahsildar, as well as the accused and the police. M.Os.1 to 24 are the said samples. Mos.25 to 48 are the ganja bags seized at that time.

(b) Thereafter, A-1, A-3 and A-4 were searched personally before the Tahsildar- PW.2 and at that time, M.Os.49 to 51 three mobile phones were found and they were seized from their possession. Police also seized cash of Rs.600/- from A-1, cash of Rs.900/- from A-3 and cash of Rs.710/- from A-4, found at the time of personal search. M.Os.52, 53 and 54 are the covers containing the said cash seized from each of the accused. A mediators report was prepared at that time i.e. at the time of seizure of the c