IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Sachin Arora – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1661 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2023
NDPS ACT - SECTION 50 - COMPLIANCE - SEARCH OF PERSON AND BAG - MANDATORY - SECTION 50 OF NDPS ACT ATTRACTED - COMPREHENSIVE SEARCH - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 50 OF NDPS ACT - FAILURE TO COMPLY - RECOVERY SUSPICIOUS - SECTION 50 OF NDPS ACT IS MANDATORY IN NATURE - SAFEGUARD TO ACCUSED - SPLITTING SEARCH INTO TWO PARTS - NOT PERMISSIBLE - BAIL GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was arrested on the basis of secret information that he was carrying heroin. A black colored polythene was allegedly found in his hand which was searched before a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon him. No independent witnesses were joined when the raid was conducted. The applicant was released on interim bail and did not misuse his liberty.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory in nature and it provides an important safeguard to the accused. It ensures that subsequent allegations of planting of evidence on part of the investigating agency are avoided and ensures that the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act are not misused by investigating agencies. In the present case, the police party acted on the basis of prior information in relation to the applicant. It is alleged that on spotting the police, the applicant tried to flee and the polythene fell from his hand on the ground. It is not in dispute that the said polythene was searched in the presence of the applicant after he was apprehended. Applying the ratio of S.K. Raju (supra) to the facts of the present case, the court is of the opinion that Section 50 of the NDPS Act will be attracted in case of a search of the black colored polythene, as well as the personal search of the applicant. It cannot be said that notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required for the search of the polythene. It is pertinent to note that conscious possession of the said polythene is being attributed to the present applicant on account of the fact that as per the raiding party, he was holding the same in his hand. Apart from the said fact, there is no marking or identification which can connect the polythene with the applicant. The raiding team, as pointed out hereinabove, was well aware of the situation, in pursuance of the secret information and had also made necessary preparations required in case of recovery of contraband. In this scenario, taking into consideration the scheme and the objective of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the raiding team was required to follow the procedure as per law. The said team cannot be permitted, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to split the search into two parts. It is not the case of the prosecution that the polythene was checked and opened before the applicant was apprehended. It is their case that it was done in the presence of the applicant after informing him about the secret information and asking passersby to join the police proceedings, therefore, splitting the comprehensive search into two parts to justify not giving a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act cannot be considered to be just, fair and reasonable procedure and is therefore, impermissible in law.
Issues: Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory in nature and provides an important safeguard to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory in nature and it provides an important safeguard to the accused. It ensures that subsequent allegations of planting of evidence on part of the investigating agency are avoided and ensures that the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act are not misused by investigating agencies.
Final Decision: The application is allowed. The applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the following conditions.
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J. The present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `CrPC`) seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 69/2019 under Sections 21/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `NDPS Act`) registered at PS Crime Branch.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated in the chargesheet, are as under:
i. On 23.03.2019, SI Ravi Saini, who was present at Narcotic Cell Office at about 06:00 AM, received information from an informant to the effect that a person, namely, Sachin, i.e., the present applicant, who is a resident of Uttam Nagar, Delhi supplies heroin in Delhi and that he shall be supplying a huge quantity of heroin at about 07:45 AM to 08:15 AM near Mukundpur Flyover on the Outer Ring Road, towards Azadpur.
ii. It is recorded that after receiving the said information, formalities under Section 42 of the NDPS Act were completed and a raiding party was organized. The said raiding party and the informant, alongwith an IO Bag, Field-Testing Kit and an electronic weighing machine left for the aforesaid spot in a private car.
iii. After reaching the said place, the raiding party asked 4-5 passersby to join the raid, however, all of them gave reasons and disagreed to join, without disclosing their names and addresses.
iv. At about 07:55 AM, an auto bearing registration number DL 1 RQ 2577 came towards the side of the Mukundpur Flyover, on the road itself. A person wearing a pink shirt and black pant, carrying a black polythene in his right hand got down from the said auto. The said person was identified by the secret informer as Sachin, i.e., the present applicant.
v. The applicant then came towards the Mukundpur Flyover and stood on the road. He was looking around while waiting at the spot. In about 05 minutes thereafter, the applicant felt the presence of police personnel and tried to rush towards his auto, however, the raiding party surrounded him at about 08:00 AM. When they tried to apprehend him, the present applicant ran and sat in his auto and tried to start the same. During that period, in his anxiety, the black polythene fell from the applicant`s hand, on the road. Before the auto could start, ASI Kirti and Constable Samrat apprehended the present applicant and another member of the team picked the said black polythene.
vi. Thereafter, on interrogation, the name and parentage of the applicant was revealed. During this time, it is stated that the raiding team requested 4-5 persons, who had gathered there on account of `curiosity`, to join the police proceedings. However, on hearing about `drugs`, none of the aforesaid persons agreed to join the said proceedings giving their reasons, and without disclosing their names. It is further stated that due to paucity of time, the names of the said persons could not be noted and neither any notice could be given to them. Thereafter, ASI Kirti was directed to bring a private car. Thereafter, the raiding officer introduced himself and his team to the applicant and told him about the secret information. Thereafter, the polythene which was held by the applicant and had fallen from his hand and was subsequently picked up by the raiding officer was checked. Upon checking, it was found to contain heavy transparent polythene tied with an elastic band. On opening the same, a brown colored substance was found.
vii. After removing the band, the contents of the aforesaid heavy transparent polythene were tested with the help of a field-testing kit and it tested positive for heroin. The substance weighed 300 grams on the electronic weighing machine. Two samples of 5 grams each were drawn and sealed. Similarly, the remaining 290 grams was sealed.
viii. It is alleged that thereafter, since there was a possibility of more recovery of contraband, SI again informed the applicant about the secret information and the applicant was served with a notice under Section
The mandatory nature of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the importance of safeguarding the accused's rights were established in the judgment.
Recovery of narcotics – Seizures are made in all kinds of circumstances and they cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis that no independent witness was present.
Non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act for personal search renders contraband recovery suspicious and vitiates conviction based thereon, as safeguards are mandatory.
Strict compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act is mandatory, and any violation of its provisions can lead to the vitiating of recovery and may be a ground for bail.
Non-compliance of mandatory provisions like Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act can be considered as a ground for bail if clear from the F.I.R. and not explained by the prosecution.
(1) Provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act will come into play only in case of personal search of accused - Section 50 does not cover a bag being carried by accused.(2) Search of person of accused - Wh....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.