STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DAULAT RAM

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 23-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
DAULAT RAM 
AUGUST 23, 2005 
[B.P. SINGH AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 50-
Applicabiity of-Search of bag carried by a person on his head-Held: Does 
not amount to personal search-Section 50 is not applicable. 
Words and phrases-'Person' and 'Personal search '-Meaning of-Jn 
the context of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985. 
D 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether search of a bag carried by a person on his head and found to 
contain contraband opium, would amount to personal search and would 
attract the provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l. The High Court erred in holding that search of a bag 
carried by a person on his head would amount to personal search and 
would attract the provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and 
F Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (883-E-F-G] 
2.1. The word "person" has not been defined in the Act. Section 
2(xxix) of the Act says that the words and expressions used herein and not 
defined but defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure have the meanings 
respectively assigned to them in that Code. The Code of Criminal 
G Procedure, however, does not def.11e the word "person". Section 2(y) of 
the Code says that the words_ and expressions used therein and not defined 
but defined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively 
assigned to them in that Code. Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code says 
that the word "person" includes any company or association or body of 
H persons whether incorporated or not. Similar definition of the word 
880 
STATEv. DAULATRAM 
881 
"person" has been given in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act. A 
Therefore, these definitions render no assistance for resolving the 
controversy in hand. [884-C-D] 
2.2. The most appropriate meaning of the word "person" appears to 
be - "the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with B 
is appropriate coverings and clothing". In a civilised society appropriate 
coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane 
human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings 
and clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as 
normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving 
outside on~'s home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, 
after being worn, move along with the human body without any appreciable 
or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from 
the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction 
is made. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc., can, under 
c 
no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given D 
a separate name and are identifiable as such. Depending upon the physical 
capacity, a person may carry any number of items like a bag, briefcase, 
a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of 
varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving 
along with them, some extra effort or energy would.be required. They 
would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or 
back or placed on the head. Therefore, it is not possible to include these 
articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in section 50 of 
the Act. [884-D-H; 885-A-B-C] 
E 
State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar. [2005] 4 SCC 350, relied on. 
f 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1067 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.2003 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B. Cr!. A. No. 261 of 2000. 
G 
Mrs. Madhurima Taria for Aruneshwar Gupta, Add!. Advocate General 
for State of Rajasthan and Naveen Kumar Singh for the Appellant. 
C.L. Sahu and Ms. Hema Sahu for the Respondent. 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered : 
B 
Heard counsel for the parties. 
Delay condoned. 
Special leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State ofRajasthan 
against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 
at Jodhpur dated 25th April, 2003 in S.B.Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2000. 
C 
The High Court by its judgment and order allowed the appeal preferred by 
the respondent and set aside the order of conviction and se

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