Bag Carried by Accused Is Not His 'Person': Section 50 NDPS Does Not Apply, Supreme Court Holds

In July 1994, police checking a bus at Mandi chased and caught Pawan Kumar, who was carrying a bag that smelt of opium; 360 grams of opium were found in it (para 2). He was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, but the High Court acquitted him, excluding the chemical examiner's report and holding that Section 50 applied to the bag search (para 2). In the State's appeal, two judges agreed that the report was admissible but differed on Section 50, so the case went to a larger bench (para 3). A connected appeal concerned 5 kg of opium found in an attaché case carried by Bhanwar Lal.

The word 'person' is not defined in the Act, and the Court applied its plain meaning (paras 6-7). In Section 50 it means "the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothings", including footwear (para 9). A bag, briefcase or container "can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being" (para 10). One test is whether the search requires touching the body, as Section 50(4) on the search of females indicates (para 11). Baldev Singh confirms that Section 50 applies only to a personal search, not to baggage (paras 12-13). The contrary remark in Namdi Francis Nwazor about handbags was obiter and unreasoned (para 15). A wider reading would also be unworkable, since the position of baggage keeps changing (para 16). Having construed Section 50 strictly, there is no justification for extending 'person' to baggage (para 22). On the facts, Section 50 had no application, as the opium was recovered from the bag the accused was carrying (para 23).