BADRI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point on which the appeal is being decided does not require detailed discussion of facts and evidence. According to prosecution on 14.5. 1992 in Bilara at 11.00 a.m. the accused- appellant was searched and thereupon 2.500 kgs. of opium was recovered from his possession. Thus he was charged for the offence under sections 8/17-18 NDPS Act. After recording the necessary evidence and hearing both the sides the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur vide his order dated 6.4.1993 convicted the accused appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. One lac. In default of the fine a further imprisonment for one year was directed.

(2.) Against this conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant.

(3.) In this case the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have not been fully complied with. In the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, andin the case of Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman, Doosa v. State of Kerala, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the provisions of section 50 are mandatory and the non-compliance where of would vitiate the contemplated under section 42 NDPS Act the authorised or empowered officer should comply with the provisions of section 50 before the search of a person is made and such person should be informed that if he so requires he should be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as provided thereunder. The Apex Court has observed that before the authorised or empowered officer conducts a search he should give the accused an option to be searched either in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or of a Magistrate. The Apex Court has expressly held that the provisions of section 50 are mandatory and the non-compliance whereof would vitiate the conviction. In Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosas case (supra), the Apex Court has observed: In State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra) it has been held that before the authorised or empowered officer conducts a search, he should give the accused an option to be searched either in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or of a Magistrate. It was also held that section 50 confers a valuable right on the person to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and if he so requires and the failure to provide that option to the accused vitiates his conviction.' From the above observation, it is evident that it is imperative on the part of the officer conducting a search to inform the person to be searched of his tight that if he so requires to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Thus, under section 50 the accused has to be given the option to be searched either in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or of a Magistrate. If both the options viz, search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate are not given the mandatory provisions of section 50 can not be said to have been complied with. If the accused is given only one option i.e. to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, obviously the provisions of section 50 are not fully complied with. Similarly if the option is given only for the search in the presence of a Magistrate only even then I the provisions of section 50 are not fully complied with.