The Supreme Court restored a cheque-dishonour conviction that the Kerala High Court had set aside because the statutory demand notice was received by the accused's mother, not by him. Once the notice is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address, service is presumed and the drawer must rebut it (paras 24, 32, 35). The Court declared M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel, which had held service on the drawer's wife insufficient, per incuriam (para 30).
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the personal search of an accused does not invalidate contraband recovered from a vehicle, where that recovery stands proved independently. Section 50 applies only to a personal search, not to a vehicle, container or premises. The Court held Dilip v. State of M.P. to be not correct, restored the conviction and reduced the sentence to ten years (paras 16-20).
Resolving a split between two judges, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a search of the person, meaning the human body with its clothing and footwear. A bag, briefcase or other container carried by the accused is not part of his person, so Section 50 does not apply to its search. Both State appeals were allowed and remitted to the High Courts (paras 9-10, 23-24).