Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Myla Venkateswarlu VS State of Andhra Pradesh...
2012 0 Supreme(SC) 279 : Section 50(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 mandates strict compliance with the requirement that the suspect must be informed of their right to have the search conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. This obligation is mandatory, not directory, and the failure to inform the suspect of this right constitutes a breach of Section 50(1). The Supreme Court has held that the concept of ''''substantial compliance'''' does not apply to Section 50(1), and strict compliance is necessary. This principle applies to searches of a person, and by logical extension, to searches of a house where the accused is present or where the search is conducted in relation to the accused. Therefore, compliance with Section 50 is mandatory in searches involving the accused, including searches of a house.Checking relevance for Birakishore Kar VS State Of Orissa...
1999 0 Supreme(SC) 845 : Section 50 of the NDPS Act 1985 applies only to the search of a person, not a premise. Therefore, compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 50 is not mandatory in the search of a house (or any premise).Checking relevance for TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU...
2021 2 Supreme 1 : Yes, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory even during a search of a house. The court has held that the obligation of the authorized officer under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act is mandatory and requires strict compliance. Failure to inform the person concerned about their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the conviction is based solely on the recovery of the illicit article from the person during such a search. This safeguard is intended to check the misuse of power, avoid harm to innocent persons, and minimize allegations of planting or foisting false cases. The court explicitly rejected the concept of ''''substantial compliance'''' and emphasized that non-compliance would vitiate the conviction, especially when the case rests on the recovery of the illicit article.Checking relevance for Arif Khan @ Agha Khan VS State of Uttarakhand...
2018 4 Supreme 492 : Yes, compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is mandatory even in the search of a house. The Supreme Court has held that the requirements of Section 50 are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The search and recovery of contraband must be conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The prosecution must prove that the search and recovery was made in the presence of either a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Non-compliance with Section 50 vitiates the conviction, regardless of whether the accused consented to the search. This applies to searches of persons and property, including houses, as the mandatory requirement is not limited to searches of the person alone.Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS Jasbirsingh...
1995 0 Supreme(SC) 1230 : Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides a valuable right to the offender, and compliance with its provisions is mandatory. This includes the requirement that a search of a person or premises must be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 50, which generally requires the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer during the search. The violation of Section 50 renders the search unlawful, and the prosecution cannot rely on evidence obtained in such a manner unless the accused has given a written waiver of their right to have a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer present. Therefore, compliance with Section 50 is mandatory in searches under the NDPS Act, including searches of a house.
