G H STATE OF PUNJAB versus BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 15-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1565-66 of 2019)
OCTOBER 15, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.50, 15– Infraction with respect to personal search u/s.50, if affects
the qualitative value of the other material/article recovered during
the investigation – As per the prosecution, respondents-accused
(driver of the vehicle and the person accompanying him) were
carrying contraband material in seven bags lying in the vehicle –
Their personal search did not lead to any recovery of contraband –
Trial Court held them guilty u/s.15 and sentenced to suffer 12 years’
rigorous imprisonment with fine – High Court on the ground that
there was infraction of s.50, as the personal search of the accused
was not conducted before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer,
acquitted both the accused – On appeal, held: s.50 affords protection
in matters concerning “personal search” and stipulates various
safeguards – An illicit article seized from the person during personal
search conducted in violation of the safe-guards provided in s.50
cannot by itself be used as admissible evidence of proof of unlawful
possession of contra-band – However, the mandate of s.50 is
confined to “personal search” and not to search of vehicle or
container or premises – In the instant case, the personal search of
the accused did not result in recovery of any contraband – But, the
search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto
having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of
s.50 as far as “personal search” was concerned, no benefit can be
extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search
of the vehicle – Further, conclusion (3) as recorded by the
Constitution Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh’s
case states that the conviction may not be based “only” on the basis
of possession of an illicit article recovered from personal search in
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 520
520
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
violation of the requirements u/s.50 but, if there be other evidence
on record, such material can certainly be looked into – Since in the
present case, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs.
were found from the vehicle which was being driven by accused
with the other accused accompanying him, their presence and
possession of the contraband material stood completely established
–Acquittal recorded by the High Court set aside– Order of conviction
recorded by the Trial Court, restored– Sentence reduced to 10 years
while maintaining the payment of fine and the default sentence
unaltered.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 50 of the Narcotic and Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 affords protection to a person
in matters concerning “personal search” and stipulates various
safeguards. It is only upon fulfilment of and strict adherence to
said requirements that the contraband recovered pursuant to
“personal search” of a person can be relied upon as a circumstance
against the person. An illicit article seized from the person
during personal search conducted in violation of the safe-guards
provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot by itself be used as
admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of contra-
band. [Paras 12, 14] [526-G; 530-H; 531-A]
1.2 The mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to
“personal search” and not to search of a vehicle or a container
or premises. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution
Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states
that the conviction may not be based “only” on the basis of
possession of an illicit article recovered from personal search in
violation of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act but if
there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly
be looked into. In the instant case, the personal search of the
accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if
there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon
for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the
Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband
pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as “personal
search” was concerned, no benefit can be extended so 

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