AHMEDversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

A                                    AHMED
                                        v.
                                 STATE OF GUJARAT

                                  AUGUST 25, 2000

B                  [G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.]

           Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Sections 20-
    8(2), 41, 42, 50-Search conducted by an empowered officer-Recovery of
    charas from the person of the accused-In.formation to the accused under
c   Section 50 of his right of being taken to the nearest gazetted o.{ficer or nearest
    Magistrate for making the search-Requirement of-Held, mandatory-
    Accused himse(f wanted to be searched be.fore a gazetted officer or a
    Magistrate and it was denied-Consequence of-Held, it renders the recove1y
    of illicit article suspect and vitiates the conviction and sentence of the
    accused-The right cannot be taken away merely because the officer going to
D   search happens to be a gazetted o.fficer-No d(fferentiation could be made
    whether the search was being made by the empowered officer who was a
    gazetted officer or an officer duly mtthorised by the empowered officer.

          On receipt of certain information that the accused was dealing with
    narcotics, the empowered officer called the panch witnesses and raided the
E
    house of the accused. The person of the accused was searched and from his
    pant pocket, 9 grams of charas was recovered. The factum of recovery of
    charas from the pant of the accused was established through the panch
    witness PW-1 and the seizure list. However, in his cross-examination,
    PW-1 stated that the accused himself had requested for being taken to the
F   Magistrate for being searched but the Police had declared that it was not
    necessary.

          The Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of the prosecution
    evidence, convicted the accused of the offence under Section 20-8(2) of the
    Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was sentenced
G   to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a tine of rupees one
    lakh. In appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
    Hence the present appeal.

          On behalf of the accused, it was contended that the mandatory
H   requirements of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-
                                           642
                       AHMED v. STATE OF GUJARAT                         643
stances Act had not been complied with inasmuch as notwithstanding the           A
fact that the accused himself requested for being taken to the Magistrate
for the purpose of search, the Police did not accede to the same and,
therefore, the conviction was null and void; that to ensure fairness in the
search itself and for compliance of Section 50 of the Act, no differentiation
could be made whether the search was being made by the empowered                 B
officer or the authorised officer, who may be a subordinate officer whom
the empowered officer authorises.

      On behalf of the State, it was contended that the provisions of Sec·
tion 50 were attracted only when a search was made by an authorised
officer and not when made by an empowered officer inasmuch as the                C
empowered officer was a gazetted officer.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD : 1.1. The accused himself having wanted to be searched
before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and the State having been denied,      D
there cannot be any doubt that failure on the part of the prosecution in
complying with the provisions of Section 50, renders the recovery of illicit
article suspect and vitiates the conviction and sentence of the accused,
since the conviction in the case in hand is based solely on the alleged
possession of charas, which was recovered from his person, during a search
conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. (652-D-F]
                                                                                 E

      1.2. When an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer, acting
on prior information is abot1t to search a person, it is imperative for him to
inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section
50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate      F
for making the search. For the purpose of complying wit~ the provisions of
Section 50, no differentiation can be made on a plain reading of the
language used in Section 50, depending upon the officer who is going to
search the person concerned. Since the search is about to be effected on the
basis of any prior information or personal knowledge, which the person
going to search has the reasons to believe that an offence under the Act is      G
being committed, then for the sanctity of the search itself, the. person to be
searched has been afforded the minimum right to be searched before
another gazetted officer or the Magistrate arid that right cannot be taken
away, merely because the officer to search happens to be a gazetted officer,
who has been empowered either by the Central Government or by the                H
    644                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A   State Government by a general or special order. [652-C; 649-D-E]

         Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Unwr Saiyad and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [1995)
    3 SCC 610 and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, [1996) 6 SCC 172, relied on.

          State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, [1994) 3 SCC 299, referred to.
B
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 701
    of 2000.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.93 of the Gujarat High Court
    in Crl.A. No. 36 of 1993.
c         Adhyaru Yashank P., Ashwani Garg, Ms. H. Wahi, M.N. Shroff and Ms.
    K. Sarada Devi for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
D
           The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahsana
    in the State of Gujarat, for the offence under Section 20-B(2) of the Narcotic
    Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
    Act'), as he was found in possession of9 gms. ofCharas on 10.5.1992, which
E   he was selling outside his house. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge, on con-
    sideration of the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that prosecution
    has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Charas was found from
    the pocket of the trouser of the accused, which weigh about 9 gms. and as such
    the accused must be held to have committed the offence under Section 20 B(2)
    of the Act. He accordingly, convicted the accused of the said offence and
F   sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of
    rupees one Iakh. On appeal by the accused, the High Court affirmed the
    conviction and sentence and hence the present appeal.

           The prosecution case in nutshell is that on receipt of certain information
    that the accused is dealing with narcotics, the empowered officer called the
G   panch witnesses and raided the house of the accused. While the accused was
    sitting on a cot, the person of the accused was searched and from his pant
    pocket, 9 gms. of Charas was recovered, which later on was established a&
    Charas. The factum of recovery of Charas from the pant of the accused is
    established through the panch witness PWI and the seizure list Exh.6 and
H   Exh.17 but the said witness PW! in cross-examination, candidly stated that the
               AHMED v. STATE OF GUJARAT [PATTANAIK, J.]                    645
accused himself had requested for being taken to the Magistrate for being            A
searched but the Police had declared that it was not necessary. PW2, the senior
Police Officer, also was examined in this case and he gave out the details about
the raid and seizure as well as drawing of the Panchnama. In assailing the
conviction, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the mandatory
requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with
                                                                                     B
inasmuch as notwithstanding the fact that the accused himself requested for
being taken to the Magistrate _for the purpose of search, the Police did not
accede to the same and, therefore, the conviction is null and void.

       The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand
contended that in the case in hand, the search itself having been made by a          C
Gazetted Office, namely, PW2, it cannot be said that there has been an infrac-
tion of Section 50 of the Act, and, therefore, the conviction cannot be held to
be invalid. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether when a search
is made by a gazetted officer, is it obligatory for the prosecution to inform the
accused of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or before a
Magistrate, as provided under Section 50 of the Act? According to the learned        D
counsel for the respondent, it is only when a search is made by an authorised
officer under Section 41(2) of the Act, it is only then, the provisions of Section
50 can be attracted but when a search is made by an officer of gazetted
rank of the department of Central Excise, who is empowered under
sub-section (2) of Section 41, then the provisions of Section 50 are not required    E
to be complied with inasmuch the empowered officer himself is a gazetted
officer. According to the learned counsel for the accused appellant, however,
the provisions of Section 50 are required to be complied with irrespective of
the fact whether the search is being made by the empowered officer, who may
be an officer of the gazetted rank or by an officer duly authorised by the
empowered officer under Section 42 of the Act. To ensure fairness in the search
                                                                                     F
itself and for compliance of Section 50 of the Act, no differentiation can be
made whether the search is being made by the empowered officer, who obvi-
ously is an officer of a gazetted rank or the authorised officer, who may be a
subordinate officer to whom the empowered officer authorises. To appreciate
the point in issue, it is necessary to extract the provisions of Sections 41, 42     G
and 50 of the Act:-

         "Section 41. Power to issue warrant and authorisation.- (I) A Met-
         ropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class or any Magistrate
         of the second class specially empowered by the State Government in
         this behalf, may issue a warrant for the arrest of any person whom he       H
    646              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A         has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under
          Chapter IV, or for the search, whether by day or by night, of any
          building, conveyance or place in which he has reason to believe any
          narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in respect of which an offence
          punishable under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or
          other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such
B
          offence is kept or concealed.

          (2) Any such officer of gazetted rank of the departments of central
          excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other depart-
          ment of the Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is
c         empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central
          Government, or any such officer of the revenue, drugs control, excise,
          police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered
          in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if


D
          he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information
          given by any person and taken in writing that any person has commit-
          ted an offence punishable under Chapter IV or that any narcotic drug,
                                                                                     -
          or psychotropic substance in respect of which any offence punishable
          under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other article
          which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence has
          been kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or place, may
E         authorise any officer subordinate to him but superior in rank to a peon,
          sepoy, or a constable, to arrest such a person or search a building,
          conveyance or place whether by day or by night or himself arrest a
          person or search a building, conveyance or place.

          (3) The officer to whom a warrant under sub- section (1) is addressed
F         and the officer who authorised the arrest or search or the officer who
          is so authorised under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of an
          officer acting under section 42.

          Section 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant
          or authorisation:- (I) Any such officer (being an officer superior in
G         rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central
          excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other depart-
          ment of the Central Government or of the Border Security Force as is
          empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central
          Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to
H
                                                   •
          a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise,
      AHMED v. STATE OF GUJARAT [PATTANAIK, J.]                    647

police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered       A
in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if
he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information
given by any person and taken down in writing, that any narcotic drug,
or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence punishable
under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other article
                                                                           B
which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence is kept
or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may,
between sunrise and sunset-

(a)   enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

(b)   in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any
                                                                           c
      obstacle to such entry;

(c)   seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manu-
      facture thereof and any other article and any animal or convey-
      ance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation     D
      under this Act and any document or other article which he has
      reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any
      offence punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or
      substance; and

(d)   detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person       E
      whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence
      punishable under Chapter IV relating to such drug or substance:

      Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search
warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording oppor-
tunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an    F
offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or en-
closed place at any time between sun set and sun rise after recording
the grounds of his belief.

(2)Where an officer takes down any information in writing under
                                                                           G
sub-section ( l) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso
thereto he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official
superior.

Section 50. Conditions under which search (If persons shall be con-
ducted- (1) When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about     H
    648                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS               -[2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A            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
B            he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred
             to in sub-section (I).

             (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such
             person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search,
             forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be
c            made.

             (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female."

    An analysis of the aforesaid provisions, unequivocally indicate that under sub-
    section (2) of Section 41, an officer of a gazetted rank of the department of
D   Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence or any other depart-
    ment of the Central Government or the Border Security Force, can be empow-
    ered by a general or special order by the Central Government, conferring the
    power to arrest a person or search a building, conveyance or place, if he has
    reason to believe from personal knowledge or information that the person
E   concerned has committed an offence punishable under Chapter IV or that any
    narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, in respect of which any offence
    punishable under Chapter IV, has been committed or any document or other
    article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence, has
    been kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or place. Sub-section (2)
    of Section 41 further enables the State Government to empower any officer of
F
    the gazetted rank of the revenue, drug control, excise, police or any other
    department by a general or special order to perform the said function. The said
    sub-section also confers power on such empowered gazetted officer to author-
    ise any officer, subordinate to him but superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or a
    constable to perform the said function, for which the general or special order
G   has empowered him. Section 42 is the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest
    without any warrant or authorisation. Section 50, which is supposed to be the
    minimum safeguard afforded to an accused, provides that when a search is
    about to be made of a person under Section 41 or Section 42 or Section 43,
    and if the person so requires, then the said person of whom, search is about
    to be made has to be taken to the nearest gazetted officer of any of the
H
                    AHMED 11. STATE OF GUJARAT [PATTANAIK, J.]                     649
    departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. The argu-            A
    ment of the learned counsel for the respondent is based upon the expression
    used in Section 50 to the effect "any person duly authorised under Section 42"
    and, therefore, a distinction is sought to be made in case of a search between
    an empowered officer and a search made by an authorised officer. But the said
    argument is devoid of any substance, since Section 42 itself also speaks of
                                                                                           B
    search to be made by an officer, as is empowered by a general or special order
    by the Central Government or as is empowered by a general or special order
    by the State Government. A combined reading of the provisions of Section 42
    and Section 50 would make it crystal clear that whenever a search of a person
    is about to be made on the basis of personal knowledge or information received
    in that behalf, then if the person to be searched requires to be taken to a gazetted   c
    officer or the nearest Magistrate, the same must be complied with and failure
    to compliance of the same would constitute an infraction of the requirements
    of the provision of Section 50, which would ultimately vitiate the conviction.
    For the purpose of complying with the provisions of Section 50, no differen-
    tiation can be made on a plain reading of the language used in Section 50,             D
    depending upon the officer who is going to search the person concerned. In our
    considered opinion, since the search is about to be effected on the basis of any
    prior information or personal knowledge, which the person going to search has
    the reasons to believe that an offence under the Act is being committed, then
    for the sanctity of the search itself, the person to be searched has been afforded
    the minimum right to be searched before another gazetted officer or the Mag-           E
    istrate and that right cannot be taken away, merely because the officer going
    to search happens to be a gazetted officer, who has been empowered either by
    the Central Government or by the State Government by a general or special
    order. In fact the legislature has enacted the safeguard contained in Section 50
    to obviate any doubt of the illicit articles under the Act and this provision was      F
    engrafted having regard to the grave consequences that may entail the posses-
    sion of illicit articles under the NDPS Act, namely, the shifting of the onus to
    the accused and the severe punishment to which he becomes liable. It is in this
    connection, it would be appropriate to extract the observations made by a Three
    Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad
    and Ors. V. State o.f Gujarat, (1995] 3 sec Page 610:                                  G

             "It is to be noted that under the NDPS Act, punishment for contraven-
             tion of its provisions can extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term
             which shall r.ot be less than IO years but which may extend to 20 years
f            and also to fine which shall not be less than Rupees one lakh but which       H
)
    650                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A           may extend to Rupees two lakhs, and the Court is empowered to
            impose a fine exceeding Rupees two lakhs for reasons to be recorded
            in its judgment. Section 54 of the NDPS Act shifts the onus of
            providing his innocence upon the accused; it states that in trials under
            the NDPS Act it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is
            proved, that an accused has committed an offence under it in respect
B
            of the articles covered by it "for the possession of which he fails to
            account satisfactorily". Having regard to the grave consequences that
            may entail the possession of illicit articles under the NDPS Act,
            namely, the shifting of the onus to the accused and the severe punish-
            ment to which he becomes liable, the Legislature has enacted the
c           safeguard contained in Section 50. To obviate any doubt as to the
            possession by the accused of illicit articles under the NDPS Act, the
            accused is authorised to require the search for such possession to be
            conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. We
            endorse the finding in Balbir Singh case that the provisions in this
            behalf are mandatory and the language thereof obliges the officer
D
            concerned to inform the person to be searched of his right to demand
             that the search be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or
             a Magistrate."

    In the aforesaid judgment, not only the decision of this Court in Balbir Singh 's
E   case to the effect that the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory, has been
    endorsed but also, it further indicates that it obliges the officer concerned to
    inform the person to be searched of his right to demand that the search be
    conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In the case
    in hand, the evidence of PW 1 indicates that even though the obligation of the
    officer had not been discharged by way of informing the accused of his right
F
    to demand that the search be conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer
    or a Magistrate but the accused himself wanted to be searched before another
    gazetted officer or a Magistrate but that was not acceded to. It is not necessary
    to notice several decisions of this Court, holding the provisions of Section 50
    to be mandatory and we would notice the recent Constitution Bench decision
G   on the point. In the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999] 6 SCC, 172,
    this question was considered and answered by the Constitution Bench by
    holding that it is an obligation of the empowered officer and his duty before
    conducting the search of the person of a suspect, on the basis of prior infor-
     mation, to inform the suspect that he has the right to require his search being
H    conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and the failure
                AHMED v. STATE OF GUJARAT [PATTANAIK, L]                      651
 to so inform the suspect of his right would render the search illegal because        A
 the suspect would not be able to avail of the protection which is inbuilt in
Section 50. It was further held that if the person concerned requires, on being
so informed by the empowered officer or otherwise, that his search be con-
ducted in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, the empowered
officer is obliged to do so and failure on his part to do so would cause prejudice
                                                                                      B
to the accused and also render the search illegal and the conviction and sen-
tence of the accused based solely on recovery made during that search bad.
This Court further held that bearing in mind the purpose for which the safe-
guard has been made, it is held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act
implicitly make it imperative and obligatory and cast a duty on the investigat-
ing officer (empowered officer) to ensure that search of the person (suspect)         c
concerned is conducted in the manner prescribed by Section 50, by intimating
to the person concerned about the existence of his right, that if he so requires,
he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and in case he
so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate
would cause prejudice to the accused and render the recovery of the illicit
                                                                                      D
article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of the accused, where
the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the
illicit article, recovered during a search conducted in violation of the provisions
of Section 50 of the Act. In paragraph 57 of the judgment in Baldev Singh 's
case, the Constitution Bench held as follows:
                                                                                      E
         "(l) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer
         acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative
         for him to inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section
         ( 1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the
         nearest Magistrate for making the search. However, such information
                                                                                      F
         may not necessarily be in writing.

         (2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of
         his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would
         cause prejudice to an accused.

        (3) That a search made by an empowered officer, on prior information,
                                                                                      G
        without informing the person of his right that if he so requires, he shall
        be taken before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate for search and in case
        he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a
        Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of
        the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an     H
    652                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of
             the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during
             a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the
             Act."

    In view of the aforesaid conclusions of the Constitution Bench, the submission
B   of Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, appearing for the State-respondent, that the require-
    ment of compliance of Section 50 will not arise, if a search is going to be made
    by an empowered officer, who happens to be a gazetted officer, is devoid of
    any substance inasmuch as this Court in no uncertain terms has held that when
    an empowered officer or a duly authori~'ed officer, acting on prior information
c   is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person
    concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to
    the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. In
    view of the aforesaid position of law and in view of the evidence of PWl, as
     indicated in the earlier part of this judgment, the accused himself having
     wanted to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and the same
D    having been denied, there cannot be any doubt that failure on the part of the
    prosecution in complying with the provisions of Section 50, renders the recov-
     ery of illicit article suspect and vitiates the conviction and sentence of the
     accused, since the conviction in the case in hand is based solely on the alleged
     possession of Charas, which was recovered from his person, during a search
E    conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. In the
     aforesaid circumstances, the conviction and sentence is set aside and the ac-
     cused be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case. Fine amount,
     if has been paid, may be refunded to the accused.

           Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.

    M.P.                                                             Appeal allowed.