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

1998 Supreme(Guj) 471

A.K.TRIVEDI, J.N.BHATT
NURMOHMED MUSABHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: ARUN H.MEHTA, K.P.RAVAL

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises important questions of law which pertains to applicability, interpretation and exposition of provisions of Secs. 41, 42, 43, 50 and 51 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (n. D. P. S. Act ).

( 2 ) THE main question which requires our examination and adjudication in light of provisions of N. D. P. S. Act is "whether mandatory requirement of provisions of sec. 50, required to be observed by the empowered or authorised officer under Sec. 50 for search of person will be attracted, even in case of gazetted officer ? In other words, benefit of mandatory provisions of Sec. 50, whereby, a person to be searched, is entitled to be searched, in presence of a gazetted officer of any of the departments mentioned in Sec. 42 or to the nearest Magistrate, can be claimed by him even when the empowered or authorised officer is a gazetted officer ? So, non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sec. 50 for search of person under the provisions of Secs. 41, 42 or 43 when the officer himself is a gazetted officer; would it be obligatory on the part of such gazetted officer to inform the person so searched, what will be legal implication in



























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top