RANJAN KUMAR CHADHA versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 06-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 23 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 289 : 2023 INSC 878
289
CASE DETAILS
RANJAN KUMAR CHADHA
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2239-2240 of 2011)
OCTOBER 06, 2023
[M.M. SUNDRESH AND J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration : The contention raised was that the High 
Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of off ence punishable under 
Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
(NDPS Act) as Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with. It was 
contended that the High Court committed error in recording the fi nding that 
Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case as the 
recovery of the contraband substance was not made as a result of the personal 
search of the accused but on account of the search of his bag.
The issue was whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act was at all applicable 
to the present case. The question, therefore, that required consideration 
was what meaning should be assigned to the phrase “to search any person” 
occurring in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Whether the phrase “to search any 
person” means (a) search of articles on the person or body of the person; 
(b) would include search of articles in immediate possession as such bag 
or other luggage carried by him or in physical possession of the person to 
be searched; (c) would include search of bag or luggage which is presumed 
to be in possession of the person even though it may be lying in a house or 
railway compartment or at the airport; or (d) whether application of Section 
50 could be extended to a case of search of a place, a conveyance or a house 
if the accused is physically present at the time of the search.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Search in 
bag of accused – Applicability of s.50 – What would be included within 
“search of a person” as stipulated u/s.50 – Term “person” – How to be 
construed – Whether a bag carried by the accused can be considered 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
290
to be inextricably linked to the accused, and therefore, any recovery of 
a contraband from such a bag without complying with s.50 would be 
inadmissible – Interpretation of Statutes.
Held: According to Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case, the 
provisions of s.50 will come into play only in the case of personal search 
of the accused and not of some baggage like a bag, article or container, etc. 
which he may be carrying – In the three Judge bench decision in Pawan 
Kumar case, it was held that the term “person” under s.50 would mean a 
natural person or a living unit and not an artifi cial person i.e., a bag or a 
briefcase  – The three Judge Bench in Pawan Kumar case concluded that 
an external article which does not form part of body is outside the ambit of 
the word “person” occurring in s.50 of the NDPS Act – In view of plain and 
unambiguous statutory provision, there is no scope of interpreting section 
50 in any other manner than the interpretation explained in Baldev Singh 
and Pawan Kumar – One must adhere to the principle of law as explained 
by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh and the three Judge Bench in 
Pawan Kumar  – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court 
was justifi ed in holding the appellant guilty of the off ence under the NDPS 
Act and at the same time, the High Court was also correct in saying that 
s.50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with as the recovery 
was from the bag. [Paras 49, 83, 114, 124 and 125]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.50 – 
Object of:
Held: The main object of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is to avoid the 
allegation of planting something or fabricating evidence by the prosecution 
or the authorized offi  cer. [Para 33]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.50 – 
Phrase “to search any person” occurring in s.50 – Meaning of – Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.100(3).
Held :  The phrase “to search any person” would mean only search of 
the body or wearing apparels of such person and in that case the procedure 
which is required to be followed would be the one prescribed under Section 
50 of the NDPS Act  – In contrast, if search of any building, conveyance or 
291
place, including a public place, is to be carried out, then there is no question 
of following the procedure prescribed under Section 50 – However, when a 
suspected or arrested person is to be searched, then the procedure prescribed 
under Section 50 comes into opera

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