Introduction:
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the legal distinction between personal searches and searches of bags under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This distinction was pivotal in overturning a Kerala High Court decision that had acquitted an accused based on a misinterpretation of Section 50. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinstated the trial court’s conviction, underscoring the importance of adhering to established legal principles in search and seizure procedures.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on January 10, 2019, when a Kerala Excise Inspector, during a routine patrol, discovered 2.050 kilograms of Ganja in a bag carried by the respondent. Charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for possessing an intermediate quantity of cannabis, the respondent was initially convicted by the trial court, which held that Section 50 did not apply since the contraband was found in a bag, not directly on the respondent.
Sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an additional six months if the fine was not paid, the respondent appealed the conviction. The Kerala High Court acquitted him, citing unlawful search and seizure due to non-compliance with Section 50. The State of Kerala then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
State of Kerala’s Argument:
The State argued that the Kerala High Court’s interpretation of Section 50 was flawed, contending that the procedural requirements, including the right to be taken before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, apply only to personal searches and not to searches of bags. The State cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which clarified that Section 50 is limited to personal searches.
Respondent’s Argument:
The respondent’s counsel argued that the Excise Inspector’s conduct was unlawful due to a violation of Section 50, which mandates that an individual undergoing a search be taken before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. They contended that non-compliance rendered the search and seizure invalid and petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the Kerala High Court’s judgment.
Supreme Court’s Judgment
The Supreme Court, referencing well-established legal precedents, affirmed that Section 50 applies exclusively to personal searches. The bench, led by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, noted that since the contraband was found in a bag, Section 50 did not apply. Consequently, the procedural requirements were not violated, and the trial court’s conviction was reinstated. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to follow established procedures to ensure fairness and legality.
Given that the respondent had already served four years, four months, and twenty-one days, the Supreme Court confined the sentence to the period already served but upheld the fine of Rs. 50,000. The Court clarified that Section 50 only applies to personal searches, preventing future misinterpretations.
