Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSHANTI
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 570
- Decided
- 21 April 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only when a personal search is made, and the failure to comply with Section 42(2) invalidates the prosecution, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Summary
The State of Rajasthan charged Shanti and her family with offences under the NDPS Act for possession and sale of opium. Police, acting on a tip, stopped Shanti, seized 10 kg of opium from her bag and later recovered another 20 kg from her residence, also arresting her husband Shankar Lal. The trial court found violations of Sections 42(2), 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act but nonetheless acquitted the accused, a decision upheld by the Rajasthan High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 50 applies in the absence of a personal search and whether the procedural requirements of Section 42(2) were complied with. The Court held that Section 50 is applicable only when a personal search is conducted, and noted that the lower courts had recorded non‑compliance with Section 42(2). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies when there is no personal search of the accused.
- Whether compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is mandatory for the validity of seizure and sample analysis.
- Whether Sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act are mandatory in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 10, s. 42(2), s. 50, s. 55, s. 57, s. 9
Subjects
NDPS Actopiumseizurepersonal searchSection 50Section 42(2)acquittalappeal dismissedcriminal procedure
Judgment
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 51
/
STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
- v.
SHANTI
(Criminal Appeal No.957 of 2003)
APRIL 21, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985:
c
Sections 9, 10, 42(2), 50, 55 and 57 - Opium - Seizure
- J of -Accused arrested - Trial Court found there was violation
of Sections 42(2), 50, 55 and 57 and acquitted the accused
- Appeal by State was dismissed by the High Court - On
. appeal, Held: Section 50 will apply only when there is personal
--- search - Also there has been non-compliance with the
D
.J-- requirement of Section 42(2) as recorded by the trial court and
rCKJ High Court - Thus, there is no merit in the appeal.
Cl CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E
ci No. 957 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.03.2002 of the High
,.,;
Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 356
of 1991.
F
Manish Singhvi and Milind Kumar for the Appellant.
Nanita Sharma for the Re~pondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
)'
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
' the State and for the respondent.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the
learned single Juc;l,ge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur
\' 51 H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A dismissing the appeal filed by the State questioning the
correctness of the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh.
Two persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences
under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic
-
B Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'NDPS Act').
3. Allegation was that on 18/1 /1999 the Station House
Officer, Police Station Pilibanga received secret information
that the respondent Shanti and her son Darshan alongwith her
husband Shankar Lal were habitually indulging in the sale and
C purchase of opium and the respondent Smt. Shanti was
expected to come with opium near a particular place. The
police officer reached the place and found that the respondent
was carrying a bag in her hand. She was stopped and
searched. The bag was found to carry about 10 kgs. of opium.
D On the information given by her, another 20 kgs. were seized
-
from near her residential house. Accused Shankar Lal was also
arrested in connection with the second recovery of 20 kgs. of
opium. Charge-sheet was filed after investigation. As the
accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. The trial
E Court found that there was violation of the provisions of Section
42 (2), 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act and acquitted the
accused. Questioning the acquittal, the High Court was moved
by the State. The High Court did not find any substance in the
appeal filed by the State and dismissed it.
...
F
4. So far as the present appeal is concerned, it has to be
noted that the special leave petition was dismissed against the
respondent No.2 i.e. Shankar Lal and notice was issued qua
the present respondent.
G 5. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that Section
50 had no application because there was no personal search.
·-1t is also pointed out that Sections 55 and 57 are not mandatory.
The prosecution version was clearly established. Learned
counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the
H trial Court and the High Court have found that there was non-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHANTI 53
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
compliance with the requirement of Sec.42(2). A
6. So far as the conclusions regarding Sec.50 recorded
by the trial Court and the High court are concerned, they same
are not in line with what this Court has said. Section 50 has
application only when there was personal search. In the instant 8
case the samples were collected, after seizure, from her bag.
Nevertheless, there has been non-compliance with the
r requirement of Sec.42(2) as recorded both by the trial Court
and the High Court. That being so there is no merit in this
appeal.
c
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "NDPS Act"Sign in to search