Section 50 Applied Because the Accused Were Personally Searched: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

The FIR alleged that on 24.12.1996 the officer in charge of a police station stopped two men speeding on a scooter; a search of their persons found nothing, but bags said to contain opium were found in the scooter, and 5 kg 890 gm of opium was recovered (para 1). The Sessions Judge, Guna acquitted them, holding that Sections 50 and 42 were not complied with, the seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution, Section 57 was breached and the sealing was irregular (para 2). The High Court reversed the acquittal and sentenced each to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh (paras 3-4).

The procedural safeguards in Sections 41, 42 and 50 should be complied with (para 6). The two seizure witnesses were declared hostile (para 8). The Sessions Judge found that prior information could not be ruled out, and the officer accepted that he intended to comply with Section 50 (para 9). The FIR did not say Section 50 was complied with; the two notices later produced did not disclose the time, date or issuing officer or say that the accused were told of their legal right, and a witness said they were not informed (paras 10-11). The personal search was made without complying with Section 50 (para 12). Balbir Singh had marked how far Sections 41 and 42 are mandatory (paras 14-15). The provisions of Section 50 "might not have been required to be complied with so far as the search of scooter is concerned", but as the appellants were searched personally, compliance was obligatory (para 17). The High Court, hearing an appeal against acquittal, did not meet the Sessions Judge's reasoning or the finding of prior information; where two views are possible, the accused gets the benefit of doubt (paras 20-21, 23).