Dismissed¶64

State of Hp v. Sahil

Himachal Pradesh HC5 May 2025CR.A/340/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh HC, Cr. A. No.340/2015, decided 05.05.2025 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Sushil Kukreja, JJ.): NDPS Section 50 mandatory-compliance; total violation of Section 50 vitiates charas recovery; acquittal under Section 20 NDPS Act upheld as neither perverse nor contrary to record; State's appeal dismissed. Cases: Arif Khan @ Agha Khan (2018) 18 SCC 380 (relied on); Ranjan Kumar Chadha AIR 2023 SC 5164 (applied); Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172, Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, Ashok Kumar Sharma 2013 (2) SCC 67, NCB v. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi 2011 (6) SCC 392 (referred).

What did the court decide?

Since there is total violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, the recovery of the alleged contraband stands vitiated. ¶63

State of Hp Vs Sahil — Narcotics (NDPS) | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. A. No.340/2015 Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Decided on : 05.05.2025

¶4

State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant Versus Sahil ….Respondent

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶8

For the Appellant: Mr. I.N.Mehta, Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Sr. Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.A.G. . For the Respondent: Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate.

¶9

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge

¶10

Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in

¶11

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶12

¶13

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶14

short, “the Act”), the appellant-State has filed the instant appeal.

¶15

2 It is not in dispute and is rather specific case of the prosecution that the alleged recovery of 30 grams charas having been wrapped in a newspaper was effected from the left pocket of the jacket of the respondent.

¶16

3 It was conceded before the learned trial court that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and the learned trial court, after taking note of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and finding major discrepancies in the prosecution case, acquitted the respondent.

¶17

4 In this background, the Court is required to consider the effect of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act, which reads as under:-

¶18

50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.—(1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.

¶19

¶20

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶21

(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).

¶22

(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.

¶23

(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.

¶24

(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

¶25

(6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

¶26

5 In the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC (380 ), Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶27

has held that it is mandatory on the part of the authorized officer to make the suspect aware of the existence of his right to

¶28

¶29

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶30

be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him and this requires a strict compliance. Further that the suspect person may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under Section 50 of the Act but so far as the officer is concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the Act to apprise the suspect of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Para Nos.18 to 20 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows:

¶31

"18. What is the true scope and object of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, what are the duties, obligation and the powers conferred on the authorities under Section 50 and whether the compliance of requirements of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, remains no more res integra and are now settled by the two decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra).

¶32

19. Indeed, the latter Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) has settled the aforementioned questions after taking into considerations all previous case law on the subject.

¶33

20. Their Lordships have held in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 must be strictly complied with. It is held that it

¶34

¶35

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶36

is imperative on the part of the Police Officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 to be searched only before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is held that it is equally mandatory on the part of the authorized officer to make the suspect aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him and this requires a strict compliance. It is ruled that the suspect person may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but so far as the officer is concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to apprise the suspect of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. (See also Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (2) SCC 67 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, 2011 (6) SCC 392)."

¶37

6 In a recent judgment Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs.

¶38

State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2023 Supreme Court

¶39

5164 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the scope and object of Section 50 of the Act and laid down the guidelines by holding that search, seizure and recovery of contraband not made in the presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and non-compliance with the mandatory

¶40

¶41

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶42

procedure under Section 50 of NDPS Act,1985 is fatal to the prosecution case. It has been held as under :

¶43

“33. Ordinarily, it could be said or argued that “to search any person” would mean, to search the articles on the person or body of the person to be searched and would normally not include the articles which are not on the body of the person to be searched. When we are deliberating on the scope and true purport of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, we should bear in mind that 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 officer. … … … … … …

¶44

36. Considering the aforesaid provisions, the inference which can be drawn is that “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 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 operation and the procedure thereunder is required to be followed. This can be seen by referring to Section 100(3) of the CrPC 1973 which provides that where any person is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may

¶45

¶46

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶47

be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency. The concealment which is suspected is on the person or about his person.

¶48

64. From the aforesaid discussion, the requirements envisaged by Section 50 can be summarised as follows:-

¶49

(i) Section 50 provides both a right as well as an obligation. The person about to be searched has the right to have his search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if he so desires, and it is the obligation of the police officer to inform such person of this right before proceeding to search the person of the suspect.

¶50

(ii) Where, the person to be searched declines to exercise this right, the police officer shall be free to proceed with the search. However, if the suspect declines to exercise his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the empowered officer should take it in writing from the suspect that he would not like to exercise his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and he may be searched by the empowered officer.

¶51

(iii) Before conducting a search, it must be communicated in clear terms though it need not be in writing and is permissible to convey orally, that the suspect has a right of being searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

¶52

(iv) While informing the right, only two options of either being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate must be given, who also must be independent and in no way connected to the raiding party.

¶53

¶54

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶55

(v) In case of multiple persons to be searched, each of them has to be individually communicated of their right, and each must exercise or waive the same in their own capacity. Any joint or common communication of this right would be in violation of Section 50.

¶56

(vi) Where the right under Section 50 has been exercised, it is the choice of the police officer to decide whether to take the suspect before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but an endeavour should be made to take him before the nearest Magistrate.

¶57

(vii) Section 50 is applicable only in case of search of person of the suspect under the provisions of the NDPS Act, and would have no application where a search was conducted under any other statute in respect of any offence.

¶58

(viii) Where during a search under any statute other than the NDPS Act, a contraband under the NDPS Act also happens to be recovered, the provisions relating to the NDPS Act shall forthwith start applying, although in such a situation Section 50 may not be required to be complied for the reason that search had already been conducted. (ix) The burden is on the prosecution to establish that the obligation imposed by Section 50 was duly complied with before the search was conducted.

¶59

(x) Any incriminating contraband, possession of which is punishable under the NDPS Act and recovered in violation of Section 50 would be inadmissible and cannot be relied upon in the trial by the prosecution, however, it will not vitiate the trial in respect of the same. Any other article

¶60

¶61

( 2025:HHC:12644 )

¶62

that has been recovered may be relied upon in any other independent proceedings.”

¶63

7 By applying the aforesaid principles in the case at hand, since there is total violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, the recovery of the alleged contraband stands vitiated. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the learned Special Judge while acquitting the respondent is reasonable based on the evidence and the same cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the material available on record.

¶64

8 In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶65

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶66

(Sushil Kukreja) Judge

¶67

05.5.2025 (pankaj)

State of Hp v. Sahil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Sahil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulakhan Singh Vs State of Hp

Gummat Ram Vs State of Hp

Mani Ram Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Jugal Kishore @ Mithu

State of Hp Vs Hem Raj

Joginder Singh Vs State of Hp