AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Siddharth Mridul, J
The present matter has been received by way of Reference vide Referral Order dated 15.06.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court and
marked to this Bench by Hon’ble the Chief Justice by directions dated 18.06.2020, to adjudicate and settle the question of law vis-à -vis the
Provision of Section 50 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), which governs
the procedure qua the search of a person suspected of being in possession of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance, inter alia before a Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate.
The genesis of the present proceeding, that calls for determination is that a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), primarily seeking regular bail pending ensuing trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge/ Special Judge (NDPS), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, was instituted on behalf of the applicant/accused, which was dismissed by learned
Sessions Court vÃde order dated 13.07.2018.
Thereafter, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C was filed, which has been referred to this Bench by the learned Single Judge of
this Court, by reason of the statedly contradictory views expressed by various Benches of this Court qua the scope and ambit of the stipulations
contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act, particularly in relation to the question whether, even though the accused at the time of his search has been
apprised of his right to be so searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, ‘if he so requires’ but has expressly waived his right
to be so searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; is it still mandated by the said provision that the the accused be searched only before a
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
The substratum of the present case is that, upon the reception of a tip-off by Sub-Inspector Vinod, Narcotics Cell, Police Station-Crime Branch on
27.07.2017, it was brought to his notice that two people namely Nabi Alam (the present applicant/accused) and Mohd. Aakil were allegedly indulging
in the supply of Heroin in Delhi, which the applicant/accused and his accomplice obtained from Badaiyu/Bareli and that they would be supplying a big
consignment of the contraband Heroin between 2.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. near traffic light at Chanakya Place, Uttam Nagar. It was also intimated to the
police officer by the secret informer that, if a raid were to be conducted at that time, the accused persons could be caught off-guard, while selling
or/and purchasing Heroin. Accordingly, a raid team was formed and the applicant/accused Nabi Alam along with one Mohd. Aakil were apprehended
on the spot. Upon a personal search of the applicant/accused Nabi Alam, a polythene was recovered from the pocket of the trousers worn by him.
Inside the said polythene, contraband Heroin weighing 250 grams was found; and similarly, from the possession of Mohd. Aakil 50 grams of Heroin
was recovered. The samples of the seized contraband were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Division (‘FSL’) at Rohini, Delhi and the
result so obtained confirmed the presence of di-acetyl-morphine in the samples. On the basis of the aforesaid, Nabi Alam and Mohd. Aakil were
arrested and booked after registering First Information Report under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
At the outset, it is observed that the application seeking bail moved before the learned Session's Court, came to be dismissed vide order dated
13.07.2018, on the ground of recovery of ‘commercial quantity’ of the contraband from the possession of the applicant/accused Nabi Alam.
Mr. Aldanish Rein, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused Nabi Alam submits that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case and has been in judicial custody since his arrest on 27.07.2017. It is the contention of the counsel for the applicant/accused that the
statutory stipulations as mandated under Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with in the present case and that the prosecution has
disregarded the sanctity of the mandatory requirement in force.
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused Nabi Alam would submit that the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act clearly and unequivocally
stipulates that the search of a person accused or suspected of being in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance can only be
conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, which mandatory stipulation, in the instant case, has been observed only in its breach.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused Nabi Alam also submits that he was asked to inscribe his signature on blank papers
at the time of his search conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act by the empowered officers of prosecuting agency, negating his statutory right
to be searched only before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused would further submit that it is statutorily mandated that despite a person accused or
suspected of being in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance waiving his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate after being apprised of his statutory right in that behalf, it is still incumbent upon the prosecuting agency and its empowered officers to
mandatorily conduct his search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate only, in order to be compliant with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act.
In order to buttress and bolster his submission, Mr. Aldanish Rein learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused Nabi Alam has
placed reliance on series of judgements of this Court, as well as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which are elaborated hereunder:-
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand reported as AIR 2018 SCC 2123.
The State of Uttarakhand Vs. Arif Khan @ Agha Khan in Review Petition (Criminal) No. 270 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 273/2007.
State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh reported as AIR 1999 SC 2378.
Karnail Singh vs State of Haryana reported as (2009) SCC 539.
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State of Gujarat reported as AIR 2011 SC 77.
Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Sukhdev Raj Sodhi reported as AIR 2011 SC 1939.
State of Rajasthan Vs Parmanand & Anr reported as AIR 2014 SC 1384.
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd., v. State of U.P., reported as 2011 (9) SCC 354.
G. K. Dudani v. S. D. Sharma reported as AIR 1986 SC 1455.
Judgment of Delhi High Court:
Innocent Uzoma Vs. State in Crl. A. 139/2017, decided on 14/01/2020.
Lai Babu @ Rajesh @ Raju Vs. GNCTD in Bail Appln. No. 1766/2019, decided on 15/10/19.
Vaibhav Gupta vs. State in Bail Appln No. 2014/2019, decided on 20/09/2019.
State Vs Vicky in CRL.L.P.143/2017, decided on 13/09/19
Sumit Rai @ Subodh Rai vs. State, in Crl. A. 578/2017 decided on 29/07/19.
Sikodh Mahto Vs. State in Crl. A. 660/2017, decided on 06/06/19.
Sunny Khanna Vs. State in Bail Appln. No. 218/2019 decided on 25/04/19
Deepak Shamsher Thapa Vs. State, in Crl. A. 831/2014 decided on 08.01.2019
Gurtej Singh Bath Vs. State, in Crl. A. 39/2015 decided on 27.12.2018
Dharambir vs. State in Crl. A. 658/2017 decided on 13.11.2018
Deepak Singh vs. State, in Bail Appln. No. 1854/2017, decided on 31/10/18
Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Mehra learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on behalf of respondent-State would submit that all statutory
prescriptions and requirements have been scrupulously and duly observed in the present case, in accordance with law, and that the requirement of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act, for the suspect to be searched only before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, even though the suspect waives that
requisition, after categorically being apprised of his right to be so searched, is not the stipulation of the provision. It is further submitted that the
applicant/accused was served with notice to be searched under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, whilst simultaneously being informed of his statutory
right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, in response to which the applicant/accused decided to waive the right by reposing faith
in the empowered officer to conduct his search; in complete accord with the stipulated and statutory requirements mandated by the provision of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that, applicant/accused was caught red-handed in possession of ‘commercial quantity’ of
contraband substance Heroin weighing 250 grams, and committed heinous crime of drug-trafficking, and warrants no leniency at this stage of trial.
Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal) appearing on behalf of the respondent-State in support of his submissions and contentions
placed reliance on the various decisions which are mentioned hereunder: -
State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh, reported as AIR 1999 SC 2378.
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State of Gujarat reported as AIR 2011 SC 77.
Ashok Kumar Sharma vs State of Rajasthan, reported as (2013) 2 SCC 67.
Raghbir Singh vs State of Harayana reported as AIR 1996 SC 2926.
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand reported as AIR 2018 SC 2123.
Babua@Tazmul Hossain Vs. State of Orissa reported as 2010 (1) ACR 713 (SC).
Union of India vs Rattan Mallik @ Kabul reported as (2009) 2 SCC 624.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported as AIR 2011 SC 312.
Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra reported as AIR 2014 SC 1745.
State of Orissa vs Mohd. Illiyas. reported as AIR 2006 SC 275.
National Insurance Company ltd. vs Pranay Sethi reported as AIR 2017 SC 5157.
Sandhya Educational Society vs Union of India reported as (2015) (5) ALLMR 467.
Judgment of Delhi High Court:
Innocent Uzoma Vs. State in Crl. A. 139/2017 decided on 14/01/2020.
Anil SharmaVs. State in Bail App. No. 127/2019 decided on 08/11/2019.
Shafi @ Lovely Vs. State in Bail App. No. 1493/2019 decided on 19/08/2019.
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and after due consideration of the rival submissions in the context of the facts and
circumstances on record, as well as, the relevant provisions of law and the decisions relied upon by the parties, we observe that the solitary question of
law that arises for consideration in the present case is: -
a) Whether even after a person accused or suspected of being in possession of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is apprised by the
empowered officer of his statutory right to be required to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, but expressly waives
compliance with the said requirement and relinquishes his stipulated right, is it still mandatory for the prosecution to conduct his search
only before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate?
Before we proceed to decide the issue struck, it is pertinent to observe that stringent provisions of the NDPS Act cast a heavier duty upon the
prosecution, who enjoy extensive statutory powers, requiring them to follow strictly and comply scrupulously with the safeguards provided in the
NDPS Act. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the intent of the legislature to include Section 50 of the NDPS Act requiring the
empowered officer to apprise the person accused or suspected of being in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance of his statutory
right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was done with a view to impart authenticity, transparency and creditworthiness to the
proceedings since the Magistrate axiomatically enjoys more confidence of the common man in contrast to any officer of prosecuting agency.
It axiomatically follows, as conclusively opined by the Constitutional Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja
(supra) and Baldev Singh (supra), that the right of the person accused or suspected of being in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, to be informed of his statutory right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, if such person so requires, is mandatory.
In order to effectively adjudicate the issue before this Court, it is considered necessary and profitable to extract the relevant provision of the
NDPS Act which reads as follows: -
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 the 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. 1[(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.â€
On a plain reading and harmonious interpretation of the above extracted provision, it is evident that Section 50 of the NDPS Act stipulates the
conditions under and the manner in which the personal search of a person accused or suspected of being in possession of any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance is required to be conducted. Upon delineation of provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, it is observed that sub-Section (1)
provides that when the empowered officer is about to conduct the search of any suspected person, he shall, “if the person to be searched so
requiresâ€, take him to the nearest Gazetted officer or the Magistrate for the said purpose. Sub-section (2), stipulates that if such request is made by
the suspected person, the empowered officer who is to effectuate the search, may detain the person accused or suspected of being in possession of
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance until the latter can be produced before such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. It is evident that if the
suspect expresses the desire to be taken to the Magistrate, the empowered officer is restrained from effecting the search of the person concerned.
Sub-section (3) provides that when a person to be searched is brought before such Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and such Gazetted Officer or
the Magistrate finds that there are no reasonable grounds to conduct the search, he shall forthwith discharge the person to be searched; otherwise he
shall direct the search to be made. Sub-sections (5) and (6) which were introduced in Section 50 NDPS Act by virtue of the Narcotics, Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 enacted on 27.09.2001 and came into effect from 02.10.2001; provided an option to the empowered
officer to search the person accused or suspected of being in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance notwithstanding the latter
exercising his right to be searched only before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, if the empowered officer has reason to believe that it was not
possible to take such person to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person parting with the
possession of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substance or any controlled substance or article or document. In terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 50
of the NDPS Act, the empowered officer mandatorily required to record reasons for his belief that it was necessary to search the person accused or
suspected of being in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance without taking him to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate,
within 72 hours of the search being conducted and a copy of the reasons so recorded was mandatorily required to be sent by the empowered officer
to his immediate superior.
At this juncture, we must reiterate that the issue before us in terms of the Referral Order is not about the general applicability of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act but is specifically to determine whether even after a person accused or suspected of being in possession of narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance is apprised by the empowered officer of his statutory right to be required to be searched before a Gazetted Officer
or Magistrate, but expressly waives compliance with the said requirement and relinquishes his stipulated right, it is still mandatory for the
prosecution to conduct his search only before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
This issue, in our considered view, is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh (supra) and
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra), wherein it was held as follows:-
“23. In the above background, we shall now advert to the controversy at hand. For this purpose, it would be necessary to recapitulate the
conclusions, arrived at by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] . We are concerned with the
following conclusions: (SCC pp. 208-10, para 57)
“(1) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to
inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate
for making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing.
(2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause
prejudice to an accused.
(3) That a search made by an empowered officer, on prior information, without informing the person of his right that if he so requires, he shall be
taken before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for search and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a
Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused,
where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted
in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
 ***
(5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 have been duly observed would have to be determined by the court on the basis of the
evidence led at the trial. Finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. Without giving
an opportunity to the prosecution to establish, at the trial, that the provisions of Section 50 and, particularly, the safeguards provided therein were duly
complied with, it would not be permissible to cut short a criminal trial.
(6) That in the context in which the protection has been incorporated in Section 50 for the benefit of the person intended to be searched, we do not
express any opinion whether the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, but hold that failure to inform the person concerned of his right
as emanating from sub-section (1) of Section 50, may render the recovery of the contraband suspect and the conviction and sentence of an accused
bad and unsustainable in law.
(7) That an illicit article seized from the person of an accused during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act
cannot be used as evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused though any other material recovered during that search
may be relied upon by the prosecution, in other proceedings, against an accused, notwithstanding the recovery of that material during an illegal
search.â€
(emphasis in original)
Although the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] did not decide in absolute terms the question
whether or not Section 50 of the NDPS Act was directory or mandatory yet it was held that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50 make it
imperative for the empowered officer to “inform†the person concerned (suspect) about the existence of his right that if he so requires, he shall be
searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate; failure to “inform†the suspect about the existence of his said right would cause prejudice to
him, and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the
recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis
of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from the person during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act. The Court also noted that it was not necessary that the information required to be given under Section 50 should be in a prescribed form or in
writing but it was mandatory that the suspect was made aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, if
so required by him. We respectfully concur with these conclusions. Any other interpretation of the provision would make the valuable right conferred
on the suspect illusory and a farce.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxx
It can, thus, be seen that apart from the fact that in Karnail Singh [(2009) 8 SCC 539 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 887] , the issue was regarding the
scope and applicability of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in the matter of conducting search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation, the said
decision does not depart from the dictum laid down in Baldev Singh case [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] insofar as the obligation of the
empowered officer to inform the suspect of his right enshrined in sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned. It is also plain from the
said paragraph that the flexibility in procedural requirements in terms of the two newly inserted sub-sections can be resorted to only in emergent and
urgent situations, contemplated in the provision, and not as a matter of course. Additionally, sub-section (6) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act makes it
imperative and obligatory on the authorised officer to send a copy of the reasons recorded by him for his belief in terms of sub-section (5), to his
immediate superior officer, within the stipulated time, which exercise would again be subjected to judicial scrutiny during the course of trial.
We shall now deal with the two decisions, referred to in the referral order, wherein “substantial compliance†with the requirement embodied in
Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been held to be sufficient. In Prabha Shankar Dubey [(2004) 2 SCC 56 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 420] a two Judge Bench of
this Court culled out the ratio of Baldev Singh case [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] on the issue before us, as follows: (Prabha Shankar
Dubey case [(2004) 2 SCC 56 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 420] , SCC p. 64, para 11)
“11. … What the officer concerned is required to do is to convey about the choice the accused has. The accused (suspect) has to be told in a way
that he becomes aware that the choice is his and not of the officer concerned, even though there is no specific form. The use of the word
‘right’ at relevant places in the decision of Baldev Singh case (1999) 6 SCC 172 seems to be to lay effective emphasis that it is not by the grace
of the officer the choice has to be given but more by way of a right in the ‘suspect’ at that stage to be given such a choice and the inevitable
consequences that have to follow by transgressing it.â€
However, while gauging whether or not the stated requirements of Section 50 had been met on facts of that case, finding similarity in the nature of
evidence on this aspect between the case at hand and Joseph Fernandez [(2000) 1 SCC 707 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 300] the Court chose to follow the
views echoed in the latter case, wherein it was held that the searching officer's information to the suspect to the effect that “if you wish you may
be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate†was in substantial compliance with the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act. Nevertheless, the Court indicated the reason for use of expression “substantial compliance†in the following words: (Prabha Shankar Dubey
case [(2004) 2 SCC 56 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 420] , SCC p. 64, para 12)
“12. The use of the expression ‘substantial compliance’ was made in the background that the searching officer had Section 50 in mind and it
was unaided by the interpretation placed on it by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080]. A line or a
word in a judgment cannot be read in isolation or as if interpreting a statutory provision, to impute a different meaning to the observations.â€
It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that Joseph Fernandez [(2000) 1 SCC 707 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 300] does not notice the ratio of Baldev
Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC(Cri) 1080] and in Prabha Shankar Dubey [(2004) 2 SCC 56 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 420], Joseph Fernandez [(2000) 1
SCC 707 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 300] is followed ignoring the dictum laid down in Baldev Singh case [(1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080]
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the object with which the right under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way
of a safeguard, has been conferred on the suspect viz. to check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimise the allegations
of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies, it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the
person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. We have no hesitation in holding that insofar as
the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict
compliance. Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is
recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search. Thereafter, the suspect may or may
not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision.â€
On a plain reading of the above decision, it is clear that the obligation of the empowered officer under sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act makes it imperative on his part to apprise the person intended to be searched, of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate;
failure to comply with which prescription, which requires strict compliance, would render the recovery of the of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the
conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person accused during such search or suspected of
being in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance during the said search. However, for the purposes of the issue to be determined in
the instant case, it is relevant and pertinent to note that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vijaysinh Chandubha
Jadeja (supra) clearly observed that “Thereafter, the suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provisoâ€.
The sequitur to this observation of the Supreme Court leaves no manner of doubt that once the suspect has been apprised by the empowered officer
of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but chooses not to exercise that right, the empowered officer can conduct the
search of such person without producing him before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, for the said purpose.
Coming now to the emphasis placed on behalf of the applicant/accused on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Arif Khan @ Agha
Khan (supra), the question that needs to be considered is whether that decision is an authority for the proposition that notwithstanding the person
proposed to be searched has, after being duly apprised of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, but has expressly waived
this right in clear and unequivocal terms; it is still mandatory that his search be conducted only before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
In this behalf, it is necessary to consider the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arif Khan @ Agha Khan (supra), the relevant
paragraphs of which decision are being extracted hereinbelow: -
“18. What is the true scope and object of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, what are the duties, obligation and the powers conferred on the authorities
under Section 50 and whether the compliance of requirements of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, remain no more res integra and are now
settled by the two decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC
172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] and Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja [Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609] .
Indeed, the latter Constitution Bench decision rendered in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) has settled the aforementioned questions after
taking into considerations all previous case law on the subject.
Their Lordships have held in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and, therefore, the
provisions of Section 50 must be strictly complied with. It is held that it is imperative on the part of the police officer to apprise the person intended to
be searched of his right under Section 50 to be searched only before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is held that it is equally mandatory on the
part of the authorised officer to make the suspect aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, if so
required by him and this requires a strict compliance. It is ruled that the suspect person may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but so far as the officer is concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to apprise
the suspect of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate.â€
A plain reading of the above extracted paragraphs leads to but one inescapable conclusion that their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
whilst following the ratio of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) held that the same has settled the position of
law in this behalf to the effect that, whilst it is imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person of his right to be searched only
before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; and this requires a strict compliance; the Hon’ble Court simultaneously proceeded to reiterate that, in
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) “it is ruled that the suspect person may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under Section
50 of the NDPS Actâ€. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed by counsel for the applicant/accused on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan (supra), in our respectful view does not come to his aid.
Having considered the case law on the subject, we are inclined to answer the Reference in the following manner.
In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we answer the issue that arises for consideration in the present Reference in the negative.
For the sake of clarity it is held that, axiomatically, there is no requirement to conduct the search of the person, suspected to be in possession of a
narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance, only in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, if the person proposed to be searched, after being
apprised by the empowered officer of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistate
categorically waives such right by electing to be searched by the empowered officer. The words “if such person so requiresâ€, as used in Section
50(1) of the NDPS Act would be rendered otiose, if the person proposed to be searched would still be required to be searched only before a Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate, despite having expressly waived “such requisitionâ€, as mentioned in the opening sentence of sub-Section (2) of Section 50
of the NDPS Act. In other words, the person to be searched is mandatorily required to be taken by the empowered officer, for the conduct of the
proposed search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, only “if he so requiresâ€, upon being informed of the existence of his right to be
searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and not if he waives his right to be so searched voluntarily, and chooses not to exercise the right
provided to him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
The Bail Application No.2641/2018 and Criminal M. (Bail) No.555/2021 seeking interim bail be listed before the learned Single Judge for further
proceedings, in accordance with law on 06.07.2021.
Copies of this Judgment be provided to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties electronically and be also uploaded on the website of
this Court forthwith.