BHARATBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAI versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 29-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
BHARATBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAI 
A· 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
OCTOBER 29, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 50-
Mandatory Requirement of-Accused on seeing policemen started running-
Creating suspicion in the mind of officer concerned-Police intercepting him C 
and then effecting search in presence of Panchas, leading to recovery of 
charas-Trial Court on basis of evidence convicting the accused-High 
Court upholding the same-On appeal held case not covered by section 50 
since police had no information that accused likely to come to the area 
where he was found with narcotic substance and also.at the time of effecting 
search there was no knowledge that accused committed offence under the D 
Act. 
When Police was on patrolling duty, they noticed that the accused, on 
seeing them, started running. Police intercepted the accused and searched 
him in the presence of Panchas which led to the recovery of Charas. A 
complaint was lodged, necessary formalities were carried out and charges E 
were framed. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused. High Court 
confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the search was not in accordance with the 
requirement of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances p 
Act, 1985. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
·HELD: I.I. Admittedly, on perusal of the evidence on the records, it is 
clear that there was no prior information to the police officer that the accused G 
is likely to come with a narcotic substance; neither the inspector had any 
reason to believe from his personal knowledge or information that the accused 
is likely to be in the area from where he was found with the contraband item. 
As a matter of fact, even at the time of effecting search, there was no knowing 
that an offence under Chapter IV of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
491 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Substances Act, 1985 has been committed by the accused. The Inspector 
merely suspected the commission of an offence by reason of the fact that the 
accused started running on seeing the patrolling party. The evidence on this 
score is clear and categorical. Though the Panchas gave a slightly different 
version of the search and seizure, that does not by itself take away the primary 
evidence as regards the search and subsequent discovery of charas in the 
B possession of the accused and the resultant seizure thereof. The cor.textual 
facts thus depict a situation not covered within the purview of Section 50 of 
the Act. (496-F-H; 497-AJ 
1.2. High Court in fact recorded a categorical satisfaction as regards 
C the acceptance of evidence as credible and trustworthy and there is no reason 
to record a different opinion in regard thereto. (497-H; 498-A] 
D 
E 
State of Punjab v. Ba/dev Singh, (1999] 6 SCC 172 and State of Punjab 
v. Balbir Singh, (1994] 3 SCC 299, relied on. 
Ahmedv. State a/Gujarat, [2000] 7 SCC 477, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 312 
of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6.2001 of the Gujarat High Court 
in Cr!. A. No. 851 of 2000. 
N.N. Keshwani, for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Anu Dubey, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
BANERJEE, J. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Narcotic 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, I 985 (hereinafter referred to as the 
"NDPS Act") categorically records the inadequacy of the existing legislation 
to combat illicit drug traffic and drug abuse, both at the national and 
international levels and it is by reason of such deficiencies in the existing 
G laws, the legislature thought it prudent to consolidate the same and bring 
about a comprehensive legislation so as to meet the exigencies of the situation. 
A plain look at the provisions of the Act read with the Statement of Objects 
and the Preamble would depict the intent of legislature as regards the offences 
under the said consolidated legislation, which stands expressed in rather 
explicit language as one of the most heinous ones in nature. This Com1, 
H however, in consonance with criminal jurisprudence of the country has been 
• 
·,,. 
' ; 
BHARATBHAI BHAGWANJIBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BANERJEE, J.] 493 
insisting on strict compliance of the safe-guards provided under the Statute A 
so as to be in tune therewith. 
At this juncture, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.