The provisions laid down under section 50 NDPS Act are only required to be mandatorily followed in case of searching a person, On an occasion of a vehicle search, it is not necessary to comply with section 50 NDPS Act. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India before Hon’ble Justice INDIRA BANERJEE & Hon’ble Justice J.K. MAHESHWARI In the matter of Kallu Khan vs State of Rajasthan [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1605 OF 2021].
The facts of the case were that on 24.04.2011 when S.I. Pranveer Singh Station Incharge of Bhawani Mandi Police Station along with constables Preetam Singh, Sardar Singh, and Rajendra Prasad was on routine patrolling at around 6:05 a.m. from Sulia Chowki to Sunel and reached Jhokadia. While returning from Jhokadia to Bhawani Mandi, they saw the accused Kallu Khan riding an unnumbered motorcycle and coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the police patrolling the vehicle, Kallu Khan turned back and tried to run away. Suspecting his conduct, the police party apprehended and questioned him. In inquiry about his behavior, accused Kallu Khan did not give a satisfactory reply. On having doubt, S.I. Pranveer Singh ordered constable Preetam Singh when such witness was not available he obtained consent from Constable Sardar Singh & Constable Rajendra Prasad and made them witness for the search of the vehicle. Upon such search 900gm of smack was found beneath the seat of his motorcycle.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the contraband was seized from the motorcycle, driven by the accused. Therefore, no question arises as to the ownership of the vehicle.
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the seizure of the contraband (Smack) is proved on record and the same is not challenged by the accused. Thus, the Contraband in full need not be placed on record.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. The State of Gujarat (2011) 1 SCC 609 observed that “the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding noncompliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of a motorcycle at a public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case.”
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the instant appeal.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur