Law Maker

State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh

Supreme Court of India · 21 July 1999 · 5 judges

An officer searching a person on prior information must tell him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; contraband recovered in breach cannot alone prove unlawful possession.

Facts

Different Benches of the Supreme Court had differed on Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Balbir Singh, Ali Mustaffa and Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad held that breach of the Section 50 safeguards made a conviction illegal, and Ali Mustaffa held that Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection did not allow contraband seized in an illegal search to prove possession. Pirthi Chand and Labh Singh, relying on Pooran Mal, held that evidence collected in a search violating Section 50 was not inadmissible. A two-Judge Bench referred a batch of appeals and special leave petitions to a larger Bench, and a three-Judge Bench, finding that Saiyad Mohd. required reconsideration, framed the questions for this Constitution Bench.

Questions before the Court

  1. Must an officer about to search a person on prior information inform him of his right under Section 50(1) to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate?
  2. What is the effect of a search made without so informing him: is the search illegal and is the trial void?
  3. Is contraband recovered in a search that breaches Section 50 admissible to prove unlawful possession, having regard to Pooran Mal?

What the Court held

  • An empowered officer acting on prior information who is about to search a person must inform him of his right under Section 50(1) to be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. This need not be in writing, but the prosecution must prove it at the trial. Section 50 applies to a search of a person, not of premises.
  • Failure to inform causes prejudice to the accused. It may not vitiate the trial, but it renders the recovery suspect and vitiates the conviction and sentence where the conviction rests only on possession of the article recovered from his person in that search. The Court expressed no opinion on whether Section 50 is mandatory or directory.
  • An illicit article seized from the person in breach of Section 50 cannot by itself be used to prove unlawful possession, though other material recovered may be used in other proceedings. The presumption under Section 54 arises only after a search complying with Section 50.
  • Whether the safeguards were observed must be decided on evidence at the trial, so a trial cannot be cut short. Pooran Mal does not allow use of such contraband; Ali Mustaffa correctly interprets it, and the broad observations in Pirthi Chand and Jasbir Singh are not correct law.

Why it matters

The Constitution Bench settled the conflict among smaller Benches on Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It treats the right to be told of the option of a search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate as part of fair procedure, links its breach to fair trial, and confines Pooran Mal so that contraband seized from a person in breach of Section 50 cannot alone prove possession. It also lays down ten conclusions to be read with the full judgment.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to whether the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or not, but bearing in mind the purpose for which the safeguard has been made, we hold that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act implicitly make it imperative and obligatory and cast a duty on the Investigating Officer (empowered officer) to ensure that search of the concerned person (suspect) is conducted in the manner prescribed by Section 50, by intimating to the concerned person about the existence of his right, that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate”
A.S. Anand, CJIPage 21 of the judgment
“The omission may not vitiate the trial as such, but because of the inherent prejudice which would be caused to an accused by the omission to be informed of the existence of his right, it would render his conviction and sentence unsustainable.”
A.S. Anand, CJIPage 21 of the judgment
“We, therefore, hold 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 by itself be used as admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused. Any other material/article recovered during that search may, however, be relied upon by the prosecution in other/independent proceedings against an accused notwithstanding the recovery of that material during an illegal search and its admissibility would depend upon the relevancy of that material and the facts and circumstances of that case.”
A.S. Anand, CJIPage 27 of the judgment
“It is, however, not necessary to give the information to the person to be searched about his right in writing. It is sufficient if such information is communicated to the concerned person orally and as far as possible in the presence of some independent and respectable persons witnessing the arrest and search. The prosecution must, however, at the trial, establish that the empowered officer had conveyed the information to the concerned person of his right of being searched in the presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, at the time of the intended search.”
A.S. Anand, CJIPage 18 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 1990
Decided
21 July 1999
Bench
A.S. Anand, CJI, S.B. Majmudar, Sujata V. Manohar, K. Venkataswami, V.N. Khare
Opinions
Unanimous. Judgment of the Constitution Bench delivered by Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.