Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal UpheldState of U.P. v. Subhash Kumar Singh Tomar
2009 INSC 494
Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2004
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 15 April 2009
- Bench
- Justices Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta and P. Sathasivam
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20, 50
Final Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the Allahabad High Court's acquittal of the respondent is upheld (paras 3-4).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 15.04.2009
Key holdings
- Informing the suspect of the right under Section 50 is an obligation of the empowered officer before a personal search (para 2).
- Failure to inform the suspect renders the search illegal (para 2).
- If the suspect asks to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the officer must comply; failure causes prejudice (para 2).
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
On 3.1.1991 two police witnesses checked the respondent, and a personal search led to the seizure of 500 grams of charas, confirmed by the Public Analyst (para 1). The trial court in Kanpur convicted him under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000 (para 1). On his appeal, the Allahabad High Court found nothing in the evidence to show compliance with Section 50 and acquitted him; the State appealed, relying on the police witnesses' account of the seizure (para 1).
Court's Findings
Before searching the person of a suspect on prior information, the empowered officer must inform the suspect of the right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate (para 2). Failure to inform the suspect makes the search illegal, because the suspect cannot then avail of the protection of Section 50 (para 2). Likewise, if the suspect asks for such a search, the officer must comply, and failure causes prejudice and renders the search illegal, so a conviction resting solely on the recovery cannot stand (para 2). On that position of law, the High Court's acquittal suffered from no infirmity (para 3).
Legal Principle
Before a personal search on prior information under the NDPS Act, the officer must tell the suspect of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. If that is not done, the search is illegal and a conviction resting only on the recovery cannot stand (paras 2-3).
