Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 5 September 2018
- Bench
- Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 42, 43, 50
The appeal was dismissed: Section 50 had been complied with and the appeal lacked merit (paras 12-13).
Key holdings
- Recording information under Section 42(1) is mandatory only where the offence is committed or an article concealed in a building, conveyance or enclosed place (para 7).
- An interception at a place accessible to the public falls within Section 43, so Section 42 had no application (para 8).
- When both the bag and the person (here, the trousers) are searched, Section 50 is attracted even if the contraband is found only in the bag (para 11).
- Letting the accused search the officer before his own search was not a forbidden ‘third’ option; the search before the gazetted officer strictly complied with Section 50(1) (paras 11-12).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v State of Gujarat (2000) 2 SCC 513
Section 42 compliance was required where charas was recovered from an auto-rickshaw, a private vehicle and not a public conveyance; cited by the appellant, held inapplicable to an interception on a public road.
- Directorate of Revenue v Mohammed Nisar Holia (2008) 2 SCC 370
A hotel is a public place but a guest's room in it is not, so Section 42 applied to a search of the room; cited by the appellant, held inapplicable.
- State of Rajasthan v Jagraj Singh (2016) 11 SCC 687
A jeep intercepted on a public road was not a public conveyance under Section 43, so Section 42(1) compliance was mandatory; cited by the appellant, held inapplicable.
View all precedents (13)
- Myla Venkateswarlu v State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 5 SCC 226
Cited by the appellant on Section 50; referred to on the mandatory nature of strict compliance with Section 50(1).
- State of Rajasthan v Parmanand (2014) 5 SCC 345
Section 50 applies where the person is searched along with the bag; offering a third option of search before an officer of the raiding party breached Section 50(1). Distinguished on the option point: letting the accused search the officer first is not such a third option.
- Namdi Francis Nwazor v Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 534
Cited by the appellant on Section 50; the Court found it unnecessary to decide its applicability.
- State of Punjab v Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172
Section 42 requires recording of reasons and of information before search, while Section 43 does not; Section 50 applies only to a search of a person as distinguished from premises.
- Narayanaswamy Ravishankar v Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2002) 8 SCC 7
A search and seizure at an airport, a public place, falls under Section 43, so non-compliance with Section 42 is irrelevant.
- Krishna Kanwar (Smt) Alias Thakuraeen v State of Rajasthan (2004) 2 SCC 608
Section 42 applies only where the offence or concealment is in a building, conveyance or enclosed place; it did not apply to a seizure from a person on a motorcycle on the highway.
- Rajendra v State of M.P. (2004) 1 SCC 432
Cited in a footnote alongside Krishna Kanwar on the scope of Section 42.
- Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609
The obligation under Section 50(1) to apprise the suspect of his right is mandatory and requires strict compliance; substantial compliance is not enough.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350
Section 50 applies only to a search of a person and not to a bag, article or container carried by him.
- Dilip v State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 1 SCC 450
Referred to with Parmanand: Section 50 applies where the person is searched as well.
