Date of the Judgment: October 06, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 878
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a bag carried by an individual be considered part of their “person” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment, clarifying the extent to which personal searches under the NDPS Act apply. This case revolves around the conviction of an individual for possession of charas, where the contraband was found in a bag he was carrying. The bench, consisting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice M.M. Sundresh, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
On August 23, 1998, police officers received secret information about a person at the Sarwari bus stand in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, suspected of carrying charas. The police reached the bus stand and identified the individual, Ranjan Kumar Chadha, who was carrying a bag. Chadha was informed of the suspicion and given the option to be searched either by the police, a Gazetted Officer, or a Magistrate. He consented to a police search. The search of his bag resulted in the recovery of 1 kg 250 gms of charas, leading to his arrest.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 23, 1998, 6:30 PM | ASI Lal Singh (PW 14) receives secret information about a person carrying charas at Sarwari bus stand. |
| August 23, 1998, 6:45 PM | Police officers reach Sarwari bus stand and locate Ranjan Kumar Chadha. |
| August 23, 1998 | Ranjan Kumar Chadha is informed of the suspicion and consents to a police search. |
| August 23, 1998 | Search of Chadha’s bag leads to the recovery of 1 kg 250 gms of charas. |
| August 23, 1998 | Chadha is arrested and informed of the grounds of his arrest. |
| March 31, 1999 | Sessions Judge, Kullu acquits Chadha. |
| August 20, 2010 | High Court of Himachal Pradesh reverses the acquittal and convicts Chadha. |
| September 16, 2010 | High Court sentences Chadha to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. |
| October 06, 2023 | Supreme Court dismisses Chadha’s appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court acquitted Chadha, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed to the High Court, which reversed the acquittal and convicted Chadha under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The High Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable as the recovery was from his bag and not from his person. Chadha then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question was Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Section 50 of the NDPS Act states:
“Section 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.
(1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.
(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.
(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.”
The core issue was whether the phrase “search of any person” includes the search of a bag carried by that person. The Court also considered Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which deals with search of a person.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The High Court erred in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal.
- Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies to the search of articles in immediate possession, such as bags.
- The appellant was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, thus violating Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
- The option given to the appellant to be searched by the police officer was a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
- Reliance was placed on SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of West Bengal [(2018) 9 SCC 708], arguing that if both the person and bag are searched, Section 50 applies.
State’s Submissions:
- The High Court was correct in convicting the appellant.
- Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not apply as only the bag was searched, not the person.
- The decision in SK. Raju (supra) is not applicable as in that case both the person and the bag were searched.
- Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh [(2019) 10 SCC 473].
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (State) |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Section 50 of the NDPS Act |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court committed any error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act? | The High Court was justified in convicting the appellant. | The Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable as the recovery was from the bag and not from the person. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 299] | Supreme Court of India | Explained the procedure for search of an arrested person and the object of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. |
| State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] | Supreme Court of India | Explained that Section 50 applies only to personal searches and not to searches of premises, etc. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand [(2014) 5 SCC 345] | Supreme Court of India | Held that offering a third option of search before a police officer violates Section 50 of the NDPS Act. |
| Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra [(1999) 8 SCC 257] | Supreme Court of India | Held that Section 50 does not apply to searches of bags. |
| State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar [(2005) 4 SCC 350] | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that “person” in Section 50 refers to a natural person and not to articles like bags. |
| State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh [(2019) 10 SCC 473] | Supreme Court of India | Held that Section 50 is confined to “personal search” and not to search of a vehicle or container. |
| SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of West Bengal [(2018) 9 SCC 708] | Supreme Court of India | The appellant argued that if both the person and bag are searched, Section 50 applies. However, this view was not upheld. |
| Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 1 SCC 609] | Supreme Court of India | Overruled previous decisions on “substantial compliance” of Section 50 and held that the obligation under Section 50 is mandatory. |
Legal Provisions
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Section 20, NDPS Act | Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. |
| Section 42, NDPS Act | Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. |
| Section 50, NDPS Act | Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted. |
| Section 100, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Persons in charge of closed place to allow search. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Section 50 of NDPS Act applies to search of bag. | Rejected. The Court held that Section 50 applies only to personal searches and not to searches of bags or other articles. |
| Appellant was not informed of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged that the appellant was not properly informed of his right under Section 50. However, this was not relevant as the recovery was from the bag. |
| The option to be searched by the police officer violated Section 50 of the NDPS Act. | Accepted. The Court held that giving a third option to be searched by the police officer was a violation of Section 50. However, this was not relevant as the recovery was from the bag. |
Authorities Viewed by the Court:
- State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172]*: The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 50 applies only to personal searches.
- State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar [(2005) 4 SCC 350]*: The Supreme Court followed this authority to clarify that “person” under Section 50 means a natural person, not a bag or container.
- State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh [(2019) 10 SCC 473]*: The Supreme Court followed this authority to hold that Section 50 is confined to personal search.
- SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of West Bengal [(2018) 9 SCC 708]*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the present case did not involve a search of the person.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a literal interpretation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that the term “person” refers to a natural human being and does not include articles such as bags or containers that a person may be carrying. This interpretation was based on the plain language of the statute and the need for clarity in criminal law. The Court also noted that while drug abuse and trafficking are serious issues, the means to address them must adhere to legal procedures.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Literal Interpretation of Statute | 40% |
| Clarity in Criminal Law | 30% |
| Adherence to Legal Procedures | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Start: Police receive information about a person with contraband
Police locate and identify the suspect (Ranjan Kumar Chadha)
Police inform Chadha of suspicion and offer search options
Chadha consents to a police search
Search of Chadha’s bag is conducted
Contraband (charas) is recovered from the bag
Issue: Does Section 50 of NDPS Act apply to bag search?
Court’s Decision: Section 50 does not apply to bag search
Result: Chadha’s conviction is upheld
The Court reasoned that:
- “A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being.”
- “The word “person” would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear.”
- “The language of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is plain and unambiguous. There is no scope of reading something into it as was done in many decisions of this Court.”
The Court rejected the argument that since the police also searched the person of the accused, Section 50 would be applicable, stating that the recovery was from the bag and not from the person.
The Court also clarified that while offering three options for search (including search by a police officer) was a violation of Section 50, this did not invalidate the conviction as Section 50 was not applicable to the search of the bag.
Key Takeaways
- Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to the personal search of a person and not to the search of bags, containers, or vehicles.
- The term “person” in Section 50 refers to a natural human being and does not include articles carried by them.
- Even if a person is searched and a bag they are carrying is also searched, Section 50 is not applicable if the contraband is recovered only from the bag.
- Offering a third option for search (i.e., by a police officer) is a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, but does not affect the validity of the search of a bag.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the strict interpretation of “personal search” under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as established in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] and State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar [(2005) 4 SCC 350]. This judgment clarifies that the scope of Section 50 is limited to the search of a person’s body and does not extend to bags or other articles carried by them. This decision settles the conflict between the views expressed in SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga v. State of West Bengal [(2018) 9 SCC 708] and State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh [(2019) 10 SCC 473], favoring the latter and the strict interpretation of Section 50.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of Ranjan Kumar Chadha. The judgment clarifies that Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to personal searches and not to searches of bags or other articles carried by an individual. This ruling reinforces the need for a strict interpretation of legal provisions and provides guidance for law enforcement agencies in conducting searches under the NDPS Act.