During a vehicle search section, 50 NDPS Act is not necessary to be complied with: Supreme Court of India

The provisions laid down under section 50 NDPS Act are only required to be mandatorily followed in case of searching a person, On an occasion of a vehicle search, it is not necessary to comply with section 50 NDPS Act. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India before Hon’ble Justice INDIRA BANERJEE &amp; Hon’ble Justice J.K. MAHESHWARI In the matter of Kallu Khan vs State of Rajasthan [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1605  OF 2021].

The facts of the case were that on  24.04.2011 when S.I. Pranveer Singh Station In­charge of Bhawani Mandi Police Station along with constables Preetam Singh, Sardar Singh, and Rajendra Prasad was on routine patrolling at around 6:05 a.m. from Sulia Chowki to Sunel and reached Jhokadia. While returning from Jhokadia to Bhawani Mandi, they saw the accused Kallu Khan riding an unnumbered motorcycle and coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the police patrolling the vehicle, Kallu Khan turned back and tried to run away. Suspecting his conduct, the police party apprehended and questioned him. In inquiry about his behavior, accused Kallu Khan did not give a satisfactory reply. On having doubt, S.I. Pranveer Singh ordered constable Preetam Singh when such witness was not available he obtained consent from   Constable Sardar Singh &amp; Constable Rajendra Prasad and made them witness for the search of the vehicle. Upon such search 900gm of smack was found beneath the seat of his motorcycle. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the contraband was seized from the motorcycle, driven by the accused. Therefore, no question arises as to the ownership of the vehicle.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seizure of the contraband (Smack) is proved on record and the same is not challenged by the accused. Thus, the Contraband in full need not be placed on record.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 observed that “the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of a motorcycle at a public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The provisions laid down under section 50 NDPS Act are only required to be mandatorily followed in case of searching a person, On an occasion of a vehicle search, it is not necessary to comply with section 50 NDPS Act. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India before Hon’ble Justice INDIRA BANERJEE &amp; Hon’ble Justice J.K. MAHESHWARI In the matter of Kallu Khan vs State of Rajasthan [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1605  OF 2021]. 
The facts of the case were that on  24.04.2011 when S.I. Pranveer Singh Station In­charge of Bhawani Mandi Police Station along with constables Preetam Singh, Sardar Singh, and Rajendra Prasad was on routine patrolling at around 6:05 a.m. from Sulia Chowki to Sunel and reached Jhokadia. While returning from Jhokadia to Bhawani Mandi, they saw the accused Kallu Khan riding an unnumbered motorcycle and coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the police patrolling the vehicle, Kallu Khan turned back and tried to run away. Suspecting his conduct, the police party apprehended and questioned him. In inquiry about his behavior, accused Kallu Khan did not give a satisfactory reply. On having doubt, S.I. Pranveer Singh ordered constable Preetam Singh when such witness was not available he obtained consent from   Constable Sardar Singh &amp; Constable Rajendra Prasad and made them witness for the search of the vehicle. Upon such search 900gm of smack was found beneath the seat of his motorcycle. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the contraband was seized from the motorcycle, driven by the accused. Therefore, no question arises as to the ownership of the vehicle.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seizure of the contraband (Smack) is proved on record and the same is not challenged by the accused. Thus, the Contraband in full need not be placed on record.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 observed that “the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of a motorcycle at a public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the case were that on  24.04.2011 when S.I. Pranveer Singh Station In­charge of Bhawani Mandi Police Station along with constables Preetam Singh, Sardar Singh, and Rajendra Prasad was on routine patrolling at around 6:05 a.m. from Sulia Chowki to Sunel and reached Jhokadia. While returning from Jhokadia to Bhawani Mandi, they saw the accused Kallu Khan riding an unnumbered motorcycle and coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the police patrolling the vehicle, Kallu Khan turned back and tried to run away. Suspecting his conduct, the police party apprehended and questioned him. In inquiry about his behavior, accused Kallu Khan did not give a satisfactory reply. On having doubt, S.I. Pranveer Singh ordered constable Preetam Singh when such witness was not available he obtained consent from   Constable Sardar Singh &amp; Constable Rajendra Prasad and made them witness for the search of the vehicle. Upon such search 900gm of smack was found beneath the seat of his motorcycle.  
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the contraband was seized from the motorcycle, driven by the accused. Therefore, no question arises as to the ownership of the vehicle.

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seizure of the contraband (Smack) is proved on record and the same is not challenged by the accused. Thus, the Contraband in full need not be placed on record.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 observed that “the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of a motorcycle at a public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the contraband was seized from the motorcycle, driven by the accused. Therefore, no question arises as to the ownership of the vehicle. 
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seizure of the contraband (Smack) is proved on record and the same is not challenged by the accused. Thus, the Contraband in full need not be placed on record.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 observed that “the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of a motorcycle at a public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seizure of the contraband (Smack) is proved on record and the same is not challenged by the accused. Thus, the Contraband in full need not be placed on record. 
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 observed that “the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of a motorcycle at a public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.”

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 observed that “the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of a motorcycle at a public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.” 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONNO. OF 8425 OF 2021 2. This appeal has been filed arising out of the judgment dated 25.11.2017 passed by High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 4912 N.D.P.S.) Jhalawar Rajasthan in Sessions Case No. 49 of as "NDPS Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs. 1 00 000 ­ The facts briefly put as per prosecution allegations on Station In­charge of Bhawani Mandi Police Station alongwith accused Kallu Khan riding an unnumbered motorcycle and vehicle Kallu Khan turned back and tried to ran away Suspecting his conduct the police party apprehended and Khan did not give satisfactory reply. On having doubt S.I Khan and also of the motorcycle which he was riding independent witness could not be found immediately for search. Thereon looking to the conduct of accused S.I Pranveer Singh obtained consent from Constable Sardar Singh & Constable Rajendra Prasad Constable Rajendra Prasad and held that the road which leads from Bhawani Mandi to Sunel. It is said despite efforts due to non­availability of independent same. It is observed that though the search appears to have interest of any witness was shown in the matter. Thus the for the offences under Sections 8 & 21 of NDPS Act and fine of Rs. 1 00 000 ­ and in default to undergo simple The appellant preferred appeal before High Court and primarily rest his challenge on the grounds firstly S.I the said recovery is vitiated. Thirdly there are glaring Upon hearing the High Court was unimpressed of the of evidence concurred with the findings of Trial Court. The High Court said it was a case of chance recovery while the on a public road hence recovery proceedings would be governed by Section 43 of NDPS Act. Nonetheless the High Court reduced the default sentence from two years without on 29.10.2021 looking to the surrender certificate it was however directed to be released on interim bail. The report further indicate that the appellant had been released on bail Thus the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court and Srieekumar learned senior counsel present case the search and seizure was conducted by an unauthorized officer with the help of the police witnesses another 9 SCC 708. As per Section 43 of NDPS Act Pranveer Singh­PW6 is competent for the search and this issue. It is also contended that in case the search and always fatal. In support of the said contention reliance is the prosecution did not examine any independent witness would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was has been re­affirmed. It is lastly urged that the concurrent this Court in State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal 4 SCC 302 Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar 6 SCC 211 Jarnail Singh and S.K. Sakkar vs. State of the appellant regarding not having any connection of the vehicle with the accused to prove his guilt reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Rizwan Khan vs. State of brought it is apparent that on apprehending the accused seized to which seizure and sample memos were prepared as used by way of chance recovery from public road the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. In this regard the guidance may be taken from the judgments of this Now reverting to the contention that the motor cycle seized in commission of offence does not belong to accused appraisal of the testimony of witnesses Constable Preetam SinghConstable Sardar SinghS.I. Pranveer Singh beyond reasonable doubt when they were on patrolling the seeing the police vehicle he had taken back the motor cycle intercepted the accused and made the search of vehicle in of the vehicle. However while making search at public place As per Section 43 of NDPS Act any officer of any of the departments specified in Section 42 is having power of seizure any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance. The said officer may detain in search any person whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act in case the possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance appears to be unlawful. Learned senior counsel motor cycle from him is proved beyond reasonable doubt In the similar set of facts in the case of Rizwan KhanAt this state the argument advanced by the appellant regarding non­production of contraband in the court due to Ram10 SCC 649 this Court held that when the seizure of material is proved on record and is not even disputed the doubt that while sending the samples for forensic tests seals by protecting the seized substance or was not stored properly directions were given to be followed on administrative side However in the facts of the case the said judgment is not of any Similarly in the case of Than Kumar vs. State of is otherwise proved and the samples taken from and out of contraband material were kept intact the report of forensic expert shows potency nature and quality of contraband As discussed above the appellant has failed to show that findings recorded by two Courts suffer from any perversity or Simultaneously the arguments advanced by the In the present case in the search of motor cycle at public place the seizure of contraband was made as revealed. Therefore the present case following the judgments of Surinder Kumar supra) and Baljinder Singh it is held that interference in exercise of the called for when the judgment of the lower court is vitiated by said issue in the case of Ganga Kumar Srivastava whereby it is settled that interference can be made when a finding is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice and misreading of the evidence or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on supra) reaffirming the law as laid down in Ganga Kumar Srivastava this Court has reaffirmed the issue of scope of In view of the foregoing discussion looking to the facts of the present case in our considered opinion the findings for the charges and to direct him to undergo sentence as prescribed do not suffer from any perversity illegality Accordingly we do not find any merit in this appeal fine therefore no further directions need be issued. 