LexRAGHBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. 1
'
RAGHBIR SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
JANUARY 29, 1996
[J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section
5{}-Right of accused to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate-<:hoice of nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate has to be exer-
cised by the Officer making search.
The Appellant was charged with an offence punishable under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 198S and tried. The trial
Judge convicted the accused of the offence punishable u/s 18 of the Act and
A
B
c
he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten
years. In the appeal before the High Court the appellant contended that D
the provisions of section SO had not been complied with, but the High
Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence while holding that the
evidence showed that the appellant had been asked whether he wanted to
be searched before a Gazetted Officer and, when he expressed that desire,
he was so searched. In this appeal against the judgment and order of the E
High Court, the question raised was whether a person to be searched u/s
SO of the Act has a right to be given an option of being searched either by
a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate.
The appellant submitted that an accused may be willing to be sear-
ched either by a police officer duly authorised u/s 42, but if he is not, he
must be given the option of being searched either before a Gazetted Officer
or before a Magistrate and if the accused is not told that he can opt to be
searched before a gazetted officer or before a Magistrate, the provisions
of section SO are not satisfied.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. Finding a person to be in possession of articles which
are illicit under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act has the consequence of requiring him to prove that he was
F
G
not in contravention of its provisions and it renders him liable to severe H
1011
~-
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996] 1 S.C.R.
A punishment. It is, therefore, that the Act affords the person to be searched
a safeguard. He may require the search to b~ conducted in the presence of
J--
a senior officer. The senior officer may be ,a Gazetted or a Magistrate,
depending upon who is conveniently available. [1015-F]
B
1.2. The option under section 50 of the Act, as it plainly reads, is only
of being searched in the presence of such seni.or officer. There is no further
I
option of being searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or of
being searched in the presence of a Magistrate. The use of the word
'nearest' in Section 50 is relevant. The seareh has to be conducted at the
earliest and, once the person to be searched opts to be searched in the
c presence of such senior officer, it is for the police officer who is to conduct
the search to conduct it in the presence ofwhiiever is the most conveniently
available Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. [1015-G-H, 1016-A]
Manohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, Crl. M.P. No.138of1996 in S.L.P.
(Crl.) No. 184 of 1996 = [1999] 1 SCR decided on 22.1.1996 (SC), relied on.
D
Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [1995]
3 S.C.C. 610, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
92 of 19%.
E
From the Judgment and Order d~ted 8.f-95 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 624-SB of 1994.
S.K. Dhingra for the Appellant.
'
F
l.S. Goyal for Ms. Indu Malhotra for tl)e Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHARUCHA, J. Leave granted.
G
This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana. It comes to be heard by a bench of three Judges by
1
reason of the fact that an order was made on 8th January, 1996, in that
... ,
behalf, having regard to the fact that the question was found to be of
importance, ·namely, whether a person to be searched under Section 50 of
H the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
RAGHBIRSINGH v. STATE [BHARUCHA, J.)
1013
referred to as ':the Act") has a right to be given an option of being searched A
- r
either by a Gazetted Officer or by a Magistrate.
On 1st May, 1991, a police party, led by the Station House Office,
Jakhal, upon information received, conducted a raid on the harvesting floor
of the accused near village Puran Majra. The accused was found holding B
a bag in hiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.