Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Supreme Court of India · 6 October 2023 · 2 judges · 2023 INSC 878
Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a search of the person, not of a bag he carries; as charas was found in the appellant's shoulder bag, non-compliance with Section 50 did not vitiate his conviction.
Facts
Acting on secret information in August 1998, police at Kullu found the appellant at a bus stand carrying a bag on his shoulder. He was told he could be searched before the police, a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and agreed to a search by the police. The search of his bag led to the recovery of 1 kg 250 gms of charas. The Trial Court acquitted him, holding that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not proved and that, as the independent witnesses turned hostile, the recovery from his conscious and exclusive possession was doubtful. The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the State's appeal, held that Section 50 did not apply because the recovery was from the bag, and convicted him under Section 20, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000.
Questions before the Court
- Was Section 50 of the NDPS Act complied with when the accused was offered a third option of being searched before the police officer?
- Does the phrase 'to search any person' in Section 50 extend to a bag or article carried by the accused?
- Was the High Court right in convicting the appellant under Section 20 of the NDPS Act?
What the Court held
- Section 50 was not complied with: the accused could not be offered a third option of search before the ASI, since Section 50 speaks only of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
- Section 50 applies only to a search of the person, that is the body and clothing of the accused. It does not apply to a search of a bag, briefcase or other article carried by him, or to a building, conveyance or place, following Baldev Singh and the larger Bench in Pawan Kumar.
- The language of Section 50 is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot read into it a wider meaning, such as treating articles 'inextricably linked to the person' as part of the person, by supplying a casus omissus.
- On the evidence nothing showed that the appellant's person was searched along with the bag, so the ratio of Parmanand and SK. Raju (search of both person and bag) did not arise. As the recovery was from the bag, Section 50 did not apply, the conviction was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment reviews the conflicting decisions on Section 50 of the NDPS Act and adheres to the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh and the larger Bench in Pawan Kumar: the safeguard of search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate applies only to a personal search, not to bags or containers carried by the accused. It also confirms that offering a third option of search before a police officer breaches Section 50 where that section applies.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Considering the aforesaid provisions, the inference which can be drawn is that "to search any person" would mean only search of the body or wearing apparels of such person and in that case the procedure which is required to be followed would be the one prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In contrast, if search of any building, conveyance or place, including a public place, is to be carried out, then there is no question of following the procedure prescribed under Section 50.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty of the offence under the NDPS Act and at the same time, the High Court was also correct in saying that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with as the recovery was from the bag.”
“We have no hesitation in recording a finding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with as the appellant could not have been offered the third option of search to be conducted before the ASI. Section 50 of the NDPS Act only talks about a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.”
“While interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. (See : Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 515). The legislative casus omissus should not be supplied by judicial interpretative process. The language of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is plain and unambiguous.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)“We adhere to the principles of law as explained by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh (supra) and the larger Bench answering the reference in Pawan Kumar (supra).” (page 98)
- Follows State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar (2005)“We adhere to the principles of law as explained by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh (supra) and the larger Bench answering the reference in Pawan Kumar (supra).” (page 98)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Case
- Criminal Appeal Nos. 2239-2240 of 2011
- Decided
- 6 October 2023
- Bench
- M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala
- Opinions
- Unanimous judgment of a two-Judge Bench delivered by J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.