Section 50 NDPS Does Not Cover Vehicle Searches; Conscious Possession Presumed: Supreme Court

On 5.10.1999 an Additional Superintendent of Police received secret information that charas was being transported in a car, reduced it to writing and directed that it be sent to the Superintendent of Police (para 7). A raiding party stopped the car; the accused, offered a search by a Magistrate or by a member of the party, consented to the latter (para 7). Nothing was found on their persons, but a bag in the car held 820 grams of charas (para 7). They were convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and each sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh; the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed their appeals (paras 2-4, 8).

The High Court had perused the original register and found no over-writing or cutting; witnesses proved delivery of a copy of the information to the Superintendent of Police. It was thus sent without delay to the immediate superior officer, so the Section 42 plea was "clearly without substance" (para 15). A bare reading of Section 50 shows that "it only applies in case of personal search of a person" and does not extend to a vehicle, container, bag or premises, a position settled by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh (para 17). The tampering plea failed: the seals were intact and the weight variation was minimal (para 18). No credence could attach to a co-accused's alleged remark to a search witness, made out of context, that the charas was his; in his Section 313 examination he said he knew nothing of the seizure (para 19). The accused were known to each other and had not explained how they travelled together in a vehicle that was not a public vehicle (para 20). Once possession is established, whoever claims it was not conscious must establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge (para 27).