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

PETITIONER: SAYAR PURI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/09/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T NANAVATI. J The  appellant  has  been  convicted under Section 8 read with section 18 of the N.D.P.S.  Act as he was found in possession of opium.  He is challenging  his  conviction  in this appeal. The  contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that no site plan was prepared by the police to  prove  that the  place  where the appellant was found sitting was a part of the public road.   In  our  opinion  this  contention  is misconceived.  The police officers who were examined in this case  and  also  the  bench  witnesses  have stated that the accused was found sitting on a bench  on  the  Mandia  Road. Thus  the  accused  was  found sitting on a public road and, therefore, neither the procedure under Section 42(2) of  the Act  was  required  to  be  followed  nor  the site plan was required to be prepared.  Another contention raised  by  the appellant  is that the requirements of Section 50 of the Act have not been strictly complied with.  We find no  substance in this  contention.    Section  50 prescribes the manner in which the search of the  person  shall  be  conducted.    No breach  of  any  particular  condition has been pointed out. Moreover, we find that P.W.  1 has stated  in  his  evidence that he had  complied  withe  those conditions.  P.W.  1 had informed the appellant about his rights.    He  has  further stated  that  the  appellant  had  told  him  that he had no objection if he was searched by him. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.