http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAGHBIR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/01/1996

BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (2) 201        1996 SCALE  (1)567

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        J U D G M E N T BHARUCHA. J.       Leave granted.       This   appeal  impugns  the   judgment  and  order  of the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &   Haryana. lt  comes  to  be neard  by  a  bench  of  three Judges  by reason of the fact that   an  order  was  made  on 8th January,  1996, in  that behalf,  having regard to the fact  that  the  question  was found  to  be  of  importance,  namely,  whether a person to be  searched  under  Section  50  of  the Nercotic Drugs and Psychotropic  Substances  Act,  1985  (hereinafter  referred to   as   "the Act") has  a  right  to  be  given  an option of  beinq  searched  either  by a  Gazetted  Officer or by a Magistrate.      On   1st  May, 1991,  a  police  party,  led  by    the Station  House Officer, Jakhal,  upon            information received,   conducted  a  raid  on  the  harvesting floor of the  accused  near  village  Puran  Majra.  The  accused was found  holding  a  bag  in  his  hand.   He  was  given  the option   of   being  searched  by  the  said  police officer or before  a  Gazetted  officer.  The  accused  opted  to be searched   before  a   Gazetted  officer.   He   was    then searched    in   the   presence  of  a  Gazetted officer and the   bag   he   was carrying was found to contain opium. He was  charged  with  an  offence punishable under the Act and tried.   The evidence of   the  prosecution  was   accepted. The  trial  judge  convicted  the  accused  of the   offence punishable  under  Section  18  of  the  said Act and he was sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for a term of ten   years.   The  High  Court,  by  the   order  that   is impugned   before   us,  upheld the conviction and sentence. It  noted  that  the  appellant   had  contended   that  the provisions   of  Section  50 had not been complied with, but it  found   that  the  evidence  showed  that  he   had been asked   whether  he  wanted to be searched before a Gazetted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

officer  and,  when  he expressed  that  desire,  he  was so searched. The conviction and sentence was affirmed.      The  only  argument  which  is  advanced  on     behalf of the appellant before us is that indicated in the referral order.      Section 50 reads thus :      "Conditions under  which sear=h  of      persons shall  be conducted  -  (i)      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  seerch,      forthwith discharge  the person but      otherwise shall  direct that search      be made.      (4) No  female shall be searched by      anyone excepting a female.        It  is submitted  on behalf  of the appellant that an accused may  be willing  to be  searched by a police officer duly authorised  under Section 42, but if he is not, he must be given  the option  of  being  searched  either  before  a Gazetted officer  or before  a Magistrate. If the accused is not told  that he  can not  to be searched before a Gazetted officer or before a Magistrate, the provisions of Section 50 are not satisfied.      Reliance  was   placed  by  learned  counsel   for  the appellant upon  the decision  in Saiyad  Mohd.  Saiyad  Umar Saiyad   &  Ors.  vs.  State  of  Gujarat,  (1995)  3 S.C.C. 610 (which  was  delivered  by  one  of us, Bharucha, J., on behalf  of  a  Bench of three   Judges). It   was  submitted that  the   observations  therein  supported  the  aforesaid submission.   In  paragraph  7  of  the  judgment  this  was said :      "Having regard  to the  object  for      which the  provisions of Section 50      have been  introduced into the NDPS      Act and  when the  language thereof      obliges the  officer  concerned  to      inform the person to be searched of      his right  to be  searched  in  the      presence of a Gazetted Officer or a      Magistrate, there   is  no room for      drawing a presumption under Section      114,      Illustration (e)  of  the      Indian    Evidence     Act,    1872      ............Very relevant  in  this      behalf  is  the  testimony  of  the      officer conducting  the search that      he had  informed the  person to  be      searched that  he was  entitled  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    demand that         the  search  be      carried out  in the  presence of  a      Gazetted Officer  or  a  Magistrate      and that  the person had not chosen      to so  demand. If  no  evidence  to      this effect is given the court must      assume  that   the  person   to  be      searched was  not informed  of  the      protection the  law  gave  him  and      must find  that the  possession  of      illicit articles under the NDPS Act      wss not established." Emphasis   was  laid  by  learned  counsel for the appellant upon paragraph 10 wherein it was said :      "(C)ourts  dealing   with  offences      under the  NDPS Act  should be very      careful   to   see   that   it   is      established to  their  satisfaction      that the  accused has been informed      by the  officer concerned  that  he      had  a   right  to   choose  to  be      searched before  a Gazetted Officer      or a  Magistrate. lt need hardly be      emphasised that the accused must be      made  aware   of  this   right   or      protection granted  by the  statute      and      unless cogent  evidence is      produced to  show that  he was made      aware of  such right  or protection      there  would   be  no  question  of      presuming that  the requirements of      Section 50 were complled with".      The   very    question  that  is  referred  to  us came to  be  considered  by a  Bench  of two  learned  Judges  on 22nd   January, 1996  in  Criminal  M.P.  No.138 of  1996 in S.L.P. (Crl.)  No.184  of 1996, Manohar Lal  vs.  State   of Rajasthan.    One   of  us  (Verma, J.),  speaking  for  the Bench, held :      "It is clear from Section 50 of the      N.D.P.S. Act  that the option given      thereby to  the accused  is only to      choose whether  he would like to be      searched by  the officer taking the      search or  in the  presence of  the      nearest available  Gazetted Officer      or    the     nearest     available      Magistrate.  The   choice  of   the      nearest -Gazetted  Officer  or  the      nearest      Magistrate has  to  be      exercised by the officer making the      search and not by the accused."      We concur with the view taken in Manohar Lal’s case.       Finding a person to be in possession of articles which are  illicit  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act  has  the consequence of  requiring him  to prove  that he  was not in contravention of its provisions and it renders him liable to severe punishment.  It is,  therefore, that  the Act affords the person  to be  searched a  safeguard. He may require the search to  be conducted in the presence of a senior officer. The  senior   officer  may   be  a  Gazetted  officer  or  a Magistrate, depending upon who is conveniently available.      The option  under Section  50 of the Aet, as it plainly reads, is  only of  being searched  in the  presence of such senior officer. There is no further option of being searched in the  presence of  either a  Gazetted Officer  or of being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

searched in  the presence  of a  Magistrate. The  use of the word ’nearest’  in Section 50 is relevant. The search has to be ccnducted  at the  earliest and,  once the  person to  be searched opts  to be searched in the presence of such senior officer, it  is for the police officer who is to conduct the search to  conduct it in the presence of whoever is the most conveniently available Gazetted officer or Magistrate.      In the  result,  we  find  no  substance  in  the  only argument advanced before us on behalf of the appellant.       The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.