SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Sunil Kumar has been convicted under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'act') for being found in unlawful possession of 600 grams of Ganja on 22-4-1999 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. He has also been convicted under certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but the conviction and sentence on that account are not challenged at the time of hearing of this appeal as the appellant has already served out the substantive sentences of imprisonment under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) SO far as conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act is concerned, that is challenged on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Act. A scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that these statutory provisions have been fully complied with. The information received by Sub-Inspector A. P. Singh (P. W. 4) was recorded in the Panchanama (Ex. P-10) and it was communicated to the D. S. P. , Sidhi as per radio message (Ex. P-10 ). There was compliance with the Section 42 of the Act. Sub- Inspector A. P. Singh (P. W. 4) has further deposed that he served the notice (Ex. P-3) on the accused before proceeding to search the dicky of the scooter. By this notice the accused was apprised of his right to be searched in the presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as provided in Section 50 of the Act. The accused however expressed that he is prepared to be searched by the Police Officer. This is sufficient compliance with the Section 50 of the Act. Further this provision is applicable to personal search only as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldeo Singh (AIR 1999 SC 2378 ). It has been held in this case that the requirement of informing the accused about his right under Section 50 comes into existence only when person of the accused is to be searched. It does not apply to the search of the baggage of the accused. This has been reiterated in Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1999 AIR SCW 4544 ). On the same reasoning Section 50 would not apply to the search of a vehicle. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 288, has been held to have been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh's case. In the present case the search of the dicky of the scooter belonging to the appellant was taken and therefore, Section 50 of the Act is not attracted.

(3.) FROM the evidence it is found that Section 57 of the Act has also been complied with. The Investigating Officer has informed his superior officer regarding the arrest and search of the accused. Even otherwise the provision of Section 57 has been held to be directory and not mandatory.