Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1059
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J.
Pandem Sai Kumar Reddy, S/o. Pandem Srinivas Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Through Excise Station Saroornagar, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8148 Of 2024
Decided On : 05-11-2024
Strict compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates the proceedings against the accused.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)
(B) - Quashing of proceedings - Accused charged with illegal transportation of ganja - Search conducted by Gazetted Officer who was also the Investigating Officer, violating Section 50 of NDPS Act - Court emphasized strict compliance with procedural safeguards to ensure fair trial. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) Legal principles - The necessity of compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act is mandatory and non-compliance results in vitiation of the proceedings. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of transporting 200 grams of ganja and was arrested after attempting to flee from the police. The search was conducted by a Gazetted Officer who also filed the charge sheet.
Findings of Court:
The proceedings against the petitioner were quashed due to violation of procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Issues: Whether the search conducted by the Gazetted Officer, who was also the Investigating Officer, violated the provisions of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dual role of the officer conducting the search compromised the legality of the proceedings, emphasizing that strict compliance with Section 50 is essential to uphold the rights of the accused.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
(K. Sujana, J.)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) (presently, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by the petitioner/accused No.1, to quash the proceedings against him in SC NDPS No.108 of 2023 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of dry ganja through S.Conventiona Hall in front of Grave yard, Bairamalguda. At about 03:15 p.m., accused No.1 tried escape from the said place by seeing the police, as such, being suspicious LWs.3 and 4 arrested the accused No.1 and other accused involved in the contravention of the provision of NDPS Act. Thereafter, after taking permission in writing from the department to search and seize the contraband in terms of the G.O.Ms.Nos.148 to 150 Revenue (Excise-II) department and searched the accused persons in front of LW.3 and also found two packets each in two side pockets each packet containing about 50 grams, total 200 grams dry ganja. Hence, a case was registered vide Crime No.93 of 2022 before the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Saroornagar and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide SC NDPS No.108 of 2023 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
3. Heard Sri B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since LW.3 acted both as Gazetted Officer and also as Investigating Officer, is abuse of process of law laid under Section 50 of NDPS Act. He further submitted that the contraband seized from the petitioner is 200 grams and the said quantity is less than small quantity. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Yusuf alias Asif v. State, 2023 Law Suit (SC) 1020; Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LawSuit (SC) 859 and Union of India v. Mohanlal and another, 2016 Law Suit (SC) 70 and prayed the court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In the case of Yusu alias Asif (Supra 1), the Apex Court at paragraph No.13 held as under:
“13. Notwithstanding the defence set up from the side of the respondent in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate. No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.” .
7. In the case of Mohanlal and another (Supra 3), the Apex Court at paragraph No.20 held as under:
“20. To sum up we direct as under:
No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer conc
