NDPS Act - If accused failed to understand questions - Refusal is void U/S 50 - Delhi HC

 The Delhi High Court has stated that if an accused misunderstands, misinterprets, or even fails to communicate the questions asked of him, his decision to refuse to have a search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate pursuant to section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, will be nullified.

As necessary requirements, Section 50's requirements, according to Justice Anish Dayal, are consistent with an accused person's entitlement to be aware of his legal rights.

"Therefore, it should be certain and without a shadow of a question that these standards have been met. By definition, a necessary condition must be followed in its entirety, in its entirety, and in its entirety, and not as a patchwork, flimsy, insufficient, or half-hearted manner "said the court.

When the Delhi Police's appeal against a special judge's decision to acquit a Spanish national was rejected, the court made the remarks.

Under NDPS Act sections 22, 23, 28 and 29, the foreign national was charged in a FIR that was filed in 2013. The accused, who was residing at a hotel in the nation's capital, was allegedly engaged in the importation and exportation of the psychoactive drug ketamine by courier to other nations.

While the special judge found that the prosecution was able to prove that the accused had 4 kg of ketamine in his conscious possession, the court cleared him, noting that the recovery was invalid since the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in section 50 had not been followed.

The special judge claimed that the accused, a Spanish national, could not have grasped the extent of his legal rights in any other language other than Spanish because he was notified of them in English while he was a Spanish citizen.

In his statement, the foreign person denied speaking any other language but Spanish, as required by section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The trial court also remarked that no effort could be seen on the part of the empowered officer to gain the presence of any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate at any point, and instead decided to rely on the written denial of the accused made in English. In light of this, the special judge ruled that the aforementioned method did not adhere to legal requirements.

Justice Dayal upheld the verdict of not guilty, pointing out that the defendant struggled with the English language and that the writing on the section 50 notice appeared forced and awkward.

"Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the so-called alleged refusal by the accused to get a search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate would be vitiated on account of his part understanding/ misunderstanding/mis-interpretation or even miscommunication of the questions put to him and/or his response," the court stated.

The trial court's recording of the evidence was read over and explained to the accused through an interpreter, the court further observed. The High Court had also noted this in an order dated February 12, 2014, and the accused had requested a translator there as well.

"It is evident from the facts and circumstances stated above and as noted in the impugned order that the accused did not have the opportunity of a translator or an interpreter at a stage when he was accosted, the search was conducted, and scope of his legal rights were attempted to be explained to him under the framework of Section 50 NDPS Act," the court noted.

Even though the court found no flaws in the impugned order, it stated that the accused was not in a position to comprehend the significance of what was being communicated or how it would affect his life.

STATE vs DENIS JAUREGUL MENDIZABAL