Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

"Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act Lends Authenticity, Transparency, and Creditworthiness to Proceedings," States Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified the interpretation and application of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and J.B. Pardiwala, put to rest speculations surrounding the compliance requirements under Section 50 during the search and seizure processes.

The judgment came as a response to an appeal filed by Ranjan Kumar Chadha, who was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

In a significant observation, the apex court stated, "We are of the view that even in cases wherein the suspect waives such right by electing to be searched by the empowered officer, such waiver on the part of the suspect should be reduced into writing by the empowered officer." The Court further added that this "would lend more credence to the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In other words, it would impart authenticity, transparency and credit worthiness to the entire proceedings."

The Court laid down several principles for compliance with Section 50, stressing the necessity of informing the person to be searched of their right to have the search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

The Court also took the opportunity to clarify conflicts between previous rulings on whether Section 50 applies when both the person and an associated object—like a bag or vehicle—are searched. "In cases where nothing is recovered during the personal search but contraband is found in the bag or object associated with the accused, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not required to be complied with," observed the Court.

Legal experts and activists regard this judgment as a significant milestone, stating that it will enhance transparency and lend credibility to future search and seizure operations under the NDPS Act.

The judgment has been marked as 'reportable', indicating its legal significance and its ability to serve as a precedent in similar cases.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2023

RANJAN KUMAR CHADHA vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH     

Similar News