No Set Words Needed for Section 50 NDPS Notice: Supreme Court Upholds Heroin Conviction

Acting on secret information that a man would carry heroin on a motorcycle, police set up a nakabandi on 6.7.1994 (paras 3-4). The driver and the appellant, his pillion rider, were told they could be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and given written notices; both chose to be searched by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (para 5). 2 kg of heroin was recovered from the driver and 600 grams from her (para 6). The trial court convicted both under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act, with 14 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2 lakh each, and acquitted two men named as suppliers; the Rajasthan High Court affirmed (paras 2, 9).

The secret information was recorded and carried to the Superintendent and Additional Superintendent of Police, so the missing dispatch number did not corrode the evidence (para 12). Section 42 deals with a "building, conveyance or enclosed place", whereas Section 43 deals with seizure and arrest in a public place, and Section 42 applies only when both its components exist (paras 15-16). On the concurrent findings, Section 42(2) was complied with (para 17). Section 50 applies only to a personal search, not to a vehicle, container, bag or premises (para 19). Following Baldev Singh, the suspect must be made aware of his right, but no form is prescribed and the Court looks at "the substance and not the form of intimation" (paras 20-21). "No specific words are necessary to be used to convey existence of the right", as Prabha Shankar Dubey had held (paras 23-24). The quantity was not small, no Section 57 violation was shown, and the samples reached the laboratory with seals intact (para 26). As for the two acquitted men, the trial court had found Sections 42(1), 42(2) and 50 not complied with, and the courts below found the evidence inadequate (paras 28-29).