STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAM CHANDRA

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 12-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN 
v. 
RAM CHANDRA 
APRIL 12, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 50 : 
C 
Applicability of-Scope-Held: S.50 only applies to personal search of 
an accused-Does not extend to search of a vehicle or container or bag or 
premises. 
Personal search : 
D 
Option to accused to be searched in presence of any of the enumerated 
categories of superior officers-Object and purpose of-Held : It acts as a 
safeguard against vexatious search, unfair dealings and protects and safeguards 
the interest of the innocent. 
Option given to the accused is only to choose whether he would like to 
E be searched by the officer making the search or in the presence of the nearest 
available Gazetted Officer or the nearest available Magistrate-The choice of 
the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate has to be exercised by 
the officer making the search and not by the accused 
Officer proposing to effect search, if himself is a Gazetted Officer-He 
F cannot act in dual capacity as Officer searching and also as Officer in whose 
presence search is effected 
Authorised officer gave accused-respondent the option of being searched 
in presence of a Police Officer of gazetted rank, or the nearest Magistrate-
He opted for search in presence of the Police Officer-Held : Search thus 
G conducted did not violate S.50-View of High Court that the search violated 
S.50 since the Police Officer was a member of the raiding party is not legally 
tenable-High Court erred in presuming bias on part of the Police Officer on 
the ground that he was accompanying the officer authorized-In any event, on 
facts, the question of bias or prejudice does not arise since he reached the 
H 
496 
J i 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN v. RAM CHANDRA 
497 
spot only after the accused was detained 
A 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether the High Court erred in holding that though the accused-
respondent had been given the option of being searched in presence of 
PW3- the Deputy Superintendent of Police, a police officer of the gazetted 
rank, but since PW3 was a member of the raiding party, the search in his B 
presence cannot at all be said to be in consonance with Section 50 of the 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was not correct in holding that the search C 
in the presence of PW-3 was not in compliance with the requirements of 
Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 
(NDPS Act). The judgment of the Trial Court convicting the accused-
respondent in terms of Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act is restored. 
(507-C; 508-G) D 
2.1. Section 50 of the NDPS Act only applies in case of personal 
search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container 
or a bag, or premises. It comes in operation when an officer authorized 
in terms of Section 42 is to ~earch any person, under the provisions of 
Sections 41, 42 and 43. Here comes the requirement of informing the E 
· person about to be searched to exercise his option to be searched in the 
presence of nearest Gazetted Officer, of any of the departments mentioned 
in Section 42 or the nearest Magistrate. (502-C; 505-G) 
2.2. There is no specific form prescribed or intended for conveying 
the information required to be given under Section 50. Since no specific p 
mode or manner is prescribed or intended, the Court has to see the 
substance and not the form of intimation. Whether the requirements of 
Section 50 have been met is a question which is to be decided on the facts 
of each case and there cannot be any sweeping generalization and/or strait-
jacket formula. (504-B-CJ 
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, [1999) 6 SCC 172, followed. 
Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., JT (1999) 8 SC 293; 
Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, (200113 SCC 28; Raghbir Singh v. State 
G 
of Haryana, (1996) 2 SCC 201; Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of Madhya 
Pradesh, (2003) AIR SCW 6592; Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 3 S.C.R. 
A Pradesh, (2003) 6 Supreme 382 and Smt. Krishna Kanwar@ Thakuraeen v. 
r
State of Rajasthan, JT (2004) 1 SC 597, relied on. 
I 
3.1. The NDPS Act affords the person to be searched a safeguard to 
~ 
the effect that he may require the search to be conducted in the presence 
of a senior officer. The senior off

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