G H STATE OF PUNJABversusBALJINDER SINGH & ANR.

520                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     13 S.C.R. 520
                              REPORTS                       [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A                             STATE OF PUNJAB
                                         v.
                         BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.
                     (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1565-66 of 2019)
B                              OCTOBER 15, 2019
            [UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA AND
                           KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
             Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
C     ss.50, 15– Infraction with respect to personal search u/s.50, if affects
      the qualitative value of the other material/article recovered during
      the investigation – As per the prosecution, respondents-accused
      (driver of the vehicle and the person accompanying him) were
      carrying contraband material in seven bags lying in the vehicle –
      Their personal search did not lead to any recovery of contraband –
D
      Trial Court held them guilty u/s.15 and sentenced to suffer 12 years’
      rigorous imprisonment with fine – High Court on the ground that
      there was infraction of s.50, as the personal search of the accused
      was not conducted before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer,
      acquitted both the accused – On appeal, held: s.50 affords protection
E     in matters concerning “personal search” and stipulates various
      safeguards – An illicit article seized from the person during personal
      search conducted in violation of the safe-guards provided in s.50
      cannot by itself be used as admissible evidence of proof of unlawful
      possession of contra-band – However, the mandate of s.50 is
      confined to “personal search” and not to search of vehicle or
F
      container or premises – In the instant case, the personal search of
      the accused did not result in recovery of any contraband – But, the
      search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto
      having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of
      s.50 as far as “personal search” was concerned, no benefit can be
G     extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search
      of the vehicle – Further, conclusion (3) as recorded by the
      Constitution Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh’s
      case states that the conviction may not be based “only” on the basis
      of possession of an illicit article recovered from personal search in
H
                                        520
      STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.                        521


violation of the requirements u/s.50 but, if there be other evidence   A
on record, such material can certainly be looked into – Since in the
present case, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs.
were found from the vehicle which was being driven by accused
with the other accused accompanying him, their presence and
possession of the contraband material stood completely established
                                                                       B
–Acquittal recorded by the High Court set aside– Order of conviction
recorded by the Trial Court, restored– Sentence reduced to 10 years
while maintaining the payment of fine and the default sentence
unaltered.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                                       C
      HELD: 1.1 Section 50 of the Narcotic and Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 affords protection to a person
in matters concerning “personal search” and stipulates various
safeguards. It is only upon fulfilment of and strict adherence to
said requirements that the contraband recovered pursuant to
“personal search” of a person can be relied upon as a circumstance     D
against the person. An illicit article seized from the person
during personal search conducted in violation of the safe-guards
provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot by itself be used as
admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of contra-
band. [Paras 12, 14] [526-G; 530-H; 531-A]                             E
       1.2 The mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to
“personal search” and not to search of a vehicle or a container
or premises. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution
Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states
that the conviction may not be based “only” on the basis of            F
possession of an illicit article recovered from personal search in
violation of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act but if
there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly
be looked into. In the instant case, the personal search of the
accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if
there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon         G
for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the
Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband
pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was

                                                                       H
522            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as “personal
      search” was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to
      invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle.
      Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as
      aforesaid. The decision in said judgment in Dilip’s case is not
      correct and is opposed to the law laid down by Supreme Court in
B
      Baldev Singh and other judgments. Since in the present matter,
      seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs. were found from
      the vehicle which was being driven by accused with the other
      accused accompanying him, their presence and possession of the
      contraband material stood completely established. In the
C     circumstances, the acquittal recorded by the High Court was not
      correct. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is set aside.
      The order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court is restored
      and accused persons are held to be guilty of the offence punishable
      under Section 50 of the Act. However, their substantive sentence
      is reduced from 12 years to 10 years while maintaining other
D
      incidents of sentence namely, the payment of fine and the default
      sentence unaltered. Both the accused are given time till 15 th
      November, 2019 to surrender before the concerned police station
      to undergo remaining sentence. In case, the accused fail to
      surrender within said period, they shall immediately be taken
E     into custody by the concerned Police Station. A copy of this
      judgment shall be communicated to the concerned Chief Judicial
      Magistrate and Police Station for compliance. The compliance in
      that behalf shall be reported to this Court on or before 01.12.2019.
      [Paras 16-21] [532-B-H; 533-A-C]
F           State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 :
            [1999] 3 SCR 977 – followed.
            Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (2011)
            1 SCC 609 : [2010] 13 SCR 255 ; Ajmer Singh v. State
            of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 746 : [2010] 2 SCR 785
G           – relied on.
            Dilip & Anr v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 450 : [2006]
            9 Suppl. SCR 390 – held not correct.



H
          STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.                             523


                           Case Law Reference                                   A
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 390             held not correct          Para 9
[1999] 3 SCR 977                    followed                  Para 13
[2010] 13 SCR 255                   relied on                 Para 13
[2010] 2 SCR 785                    relied on                 Para 15           B
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1565-1566 of 2019.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-D-917-DB of 2011 and
                                                                                C
CRA-D-923-DB of 2011.
         Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Tanupriya, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Naresh Dilawari, Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Sheffali Chaudhary,
Ms. Vipasha Singh, Ms. Pallavi Singh, Ms. Vriti Gujral, G. Balaji, Advs.
for the Respondents.                                                            D
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
         1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals arise out of the judgment1 of the High Court2           E
setting aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial
Court against the present respondents, namely, Baljinder Singh and Khushi
Khan.
     3. The case of the prosecution as set out in the judgment of the
High Court was as under:                                                        F
         “3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is ;that on 19.8.2009
         ASI Rakesh Kumar along with other police officials in connection
         with patrolling duty were present at Sirhind bye-pass, Rajpura.
         Lachhman Singh son of Sarwan Singh came on the spot. When
         Rakesh Kumar was talking with Lachhman Singh, a Qualis bearing         G
         registration no. PB-13-D-7000 was seen coming from Ambala
         side. On seeing the police party, the driver of the vehicle tried to

1
    Judgment and order dt.22.1.19 in CRA-D-917-DB/2011 & CRA-D-923-DB/2011
2
    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                                                                H
524            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           reverse the vehicle. On suspicion, the vehicle was stopped. One
            lady was sitting with the driver. On enquiry, the driver and
            passenger disclosed their identities. ASI Rakesh Kumar suspected
            them to be carrying some contraband in the bags lying in the
            vehicle. He wanted to search them. He apprised the accused of
            their right to get the search conducted in the presence of Magistrate
B
            or gazetted Police Officer. However, accused reposed confidence
            in him. Joint consent statement of accused was reduced into
            writing. On search, 7 bags containing poppy husk were recovered.
            Two samples of 250 grams each from each bag were separated
            and the residual poppy husk of each bag weighed 34 kgs. All the
C           sample parcels and bulk parcels were sealed with the seals bearing
            impression ‘RK’ Specimen seal was prepared and the seal after
            use was handed over to HC Malwinder Singh. The case property
            was taken into possession. Ruqa was sent to the police station,
            on the basis of which FIR was registered. The case property
            was deposited in the Malkhana. On receipt of chemical report
D
            and after completing all the codal formalities, challan was put up
            in Court against the accused.”
             4. Thus, according to the prosecution, accused Baljinder Singh,
      driver of the vehicle and Khushi Khan who was accompanying the driver,
      were guilty of offences punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic and
E     Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to
      as “the Act”). As indicated in the above paragraph, the contraband
      material found in seven bags contained poppy husk. It is also a matter
      of record that the personal search of both the accused was undertaken
      after their arrest, which did not lead to any recovery of contraband.
F           5. The case of the prosecution was accepted by the Judge, Special
      Court, Patiala in Sessions Case No.IIT/17.11.2009/11. By its judgment
      dated 8.9.2011, the Trial Court concluded that the aforesaid two accused
      were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and
      sentenced them to suffer 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine in
G     the sum of Rs.2 lakhs each, in default whereof, they were further directed
      to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
            6. In the appeals preferred by the accused, the High Court
      observed that the personal search of the accused was not conducted

H
          STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.                            525
                    [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and as such there was              A
complete infraction of Section 50 of the Act. Granting benefit on that
count, the High Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence
recorded by the Trial Court and acquitted both the accused of the charge
levelled against them.
      7. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the State          B
submitted that the High Court fell in error in not considering the fact that
the search of the vehicle had resulted in recovery of seven bags of
poppy husk containing 34 kgs in each bag. In her submission, though
there may be infraction of the requirement of Section 50 as regards
personal search of the accused, the fact of recovery of material from
the vehicle was an independent factor which ought to be taken into             C
account.
      8. Mr. Naresh Dilawari and Ms. Pallavi Singh, learned advocates
appearing for the accused however, submitted that non-compliance of
Section 50 ought to result in acquittal of the accused and as such the
view taken by the High Court was correct.                                      D

       9. Ms. Pallavi Singh, learned Advocate also relied upon the decision
of this Court in Dilip & Anr vs State of M.P.3 to submit that once there
was non-compliance of the requirements of Section 50, the benefit ought
to be extended in favour of the accused.
                                                                               E
         10. The question that arises in the matter is:-
             If a person found to be in possession of a vehicle containing
         contraband is subjected to personal search, which may not be in
         conformity with the requirements under Section 50 of the Act;
         but                                                                   F
           the search of the vehicle results in recovery of contraband
         material, which stands proved independently;
            would the accused be entitled to benefit of acquittal on the
         ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act even in respect
         of material found in the search of the vehicle.                       G
       11. Before we deal with the question, we may extract Section 50
of the Act:
          “50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.
3
    [(2007) 1 SCC 450]
                                                                               H
526            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           (1) 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.
B
            (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
C           such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for
            search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct
            that search be made.
            (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.
            (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason
D           to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched
            to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility
            of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic
            drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article
            or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest
E           Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as
            provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
            1973 (2 of 1974).
            (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer
            shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such
F           search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his
            immediate official superior.”
            12. Section 50 of the Act affords protection to a person in matters
      concerning “personal search” and stipulates various safeguards. It is
      only upon fulfilment of and strict adherence to said requirements that
      the contraband recovered pursuant to “personal search” of a person
G
      can be relied upon as a circumstance against the person.
           13. The law which has developed on the point in some of the
      judgments of this Court may now be considered.


H
          STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.                                 527
                    [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

       In State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh4 a Constitution Bench of this            A
Court considered, inter alia, questions as to what would be the resultant
effect, in case the requirements of Section 50 were not complied with.
The conclusions arrived at in para 57 of the decision were as under:
         57. On the basis of the reasoning and discussion above, the following
         conclusions arise:                                                         B
         (1) 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.          C
         However, such information 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                   D
         information, 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           E
         vitiate the conviction and sentence of an 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.
         (Underlying by us)
                                                                                    F
         (4) That there is indeed need to protect society from criminals.
         The societal intent in safety will suffer if persons who commit
         crimes are let off because the evidence against them is to be
         treated as if it does not exist. The answer, therefore, is that the
         investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by
         the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must be viewed           G
         by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the official
         concerned so that the laxity on the part of the investigating authority
         is curbed. In every case the end result is important but the means

4
    [(1999) 6 SCC 172]
                                                                                    H
528      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     to achieve it must remain above board. The remedy cannot be
      worse than the disease itself. The legitimacy of the judicial process
      may come under a cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of
      lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search
      operations and may also undermine respect for the law and may
      have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration
B
      of justice. That cannot be permitted. An accused is entitled to a
      fair trial. A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to
      our concept of justice. The use of evidence collected in breach of
      the safeguards provided by Section 50 at the trial, would render
      the trial unfair.
C     (5) That whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50
      have been duly observed would have to be determined by the
      court on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. Finding on that
      issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an
      order of conviction or acquittal. Without giving an opportunity to
D     the prosecution to establish, at the trial, that the provisions of Section
      50 and, particularly, the safeguards provided therein were duly
      complied with, it would not be permissible to cut short a criminal
      trial.
      (6) That in the context in which the protection has been
E     incorporated in Section 50 for the benefit of the person intended
      to be searched, we do not express any opinion whether the
      provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, but hold that
      failure to inform the person concerned of his right as emanating
      from sub-section (1) of Section 50, may render the recovery of
      the contraband suspect and the conviction and sentence of an
F     accused bad and unsustainable in law.
      (7) 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 be used as evidence of proof of
      unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused though any
G     other material recovered during that search may be relied upon
      by the prosecution, in other proceedings, against an accused,
      notwithstanding the recovery of that material during an illegal
      search.

H
          STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.                              529
                    [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

         (8) A presumption under Section 54 of the Act can only be raised        A
         after the prosecution has established that the accused was found
         to be in possession of the contraband in a search conducted in
         accordance with the mandate of Section 50. An illegal search
         cannot entitle the prosecution to raise a presumption under Section
         54 of the Act.
                                                                                 B
         (9) That the judgment in Pooran Mal case [(1974) 1 SCC 345]
         cannot be understood to have laid down that an illicit article seized
         during a search of a person, on prior information, conducted in
         violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, can by itself
         be used as evidence of unlawful possession of the illicit article on
         the person from whom the contraband has been seized during the          C
         illegal search.
         (10) That the judgment in Ali Mustaffa case [(1994) 6 SCC 569]
         correctly interprets and distinguishes the judgment in Pooran Mal
         case [(1974) 1 SCC 345]and the broad observations made in Pirthi
         Chand case[(1996) 2 SCC 37] and Jasbir Singh case [(1996)1              D
         SCC 288] are not in tune with the correct exposition of law as laid
         down in Pooran Mal case[(1974) 1 SCC 345].”
      Subsequently, another Constitution Bench of this Court in
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat5 had an occasion
to consider the case from the stand-point whether the person who is              E
about to be searched ought to be informed of his right that he could be
searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. While
considering said question, this Court also dealt with the judgment rendered
in Baldev Singh’s case and the discussion in paragraphs 24 and 29 was
as under:                                                                        F
         24. Although the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case [(1999)
         6 SCC 172] did not decide in absolute terms the question whether
         or not Section 50 of the NDPS Act was directory or mandatory
         yet it was held that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50
         make it imperative for the empowered officer to “inform” the            G
         person concerned (suspect) about the existence of his right that if
         he so requires, he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a
         Magistrate; failure to “inform” the suspect about the existence of

5
    [(2011) 1 SCC 609]                                                           H
530             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           his said right would cause prejudice to him, 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 accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on
            the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from the
B
            person during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of
            Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court also noted that it was not
            necessary that the information required to be given under Section
            50 should be in a prescribed form or in writing but it was mandatory
            that the suspect was made aware of the existence of his right to
C           be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, if so
            required by him. We respectfully concur with these conclusions.
            Any other interpretation of the provision would make the valuable
            right conferred on the suspect illusory and a farce.
            …                  …                                …
D           29. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion
            that the object with which the right under Section 50(1) of the
            NDPS Act, by way of a safeguard, has been conferred on the
            suspect viz. to check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to
            innocent persons and to minimise the allegations of planting or
E           foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies, it would
            be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the
            person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before
            a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. We have no hesitation in holding
            that insofar as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-
            section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is
F           mandatory and requires strict compliance. Failure to comply with
            the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect
            and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis
            of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused
            during such search. Thereafter, the suspect may or may not choose
G           to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision.”
            (Underlying by us)
            14. The law is thus well settled that an illicit article seized from
      the person during personal search conducted in violation of the safe-

H
          STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.                              531
                    [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

guards provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot by itself be used as             A
admissible evidence of proof of unlawful possession of contra-band.
      But the question is, if there be any other material or article
recovered during the investigation, would the infraction with respect to
personal search also affect the qualitative value of the other material
circumstance.                                                                    B
      15. At this stage we may also consider following observations
from the decision of this Court in Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana6:-
         “15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
         provision of Section 50 of the Act would also apply, while searching
         the bag, briefcase, etc. carried by the person and its non-compliance   C
         would be fatal to the proceedings initiated under the Act. We find
         no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. It requires to be
         noticed that the question of compliance or non-compliance with
         Section 50 of the NDPS Act is relevant only where search of a
         person is involved and the said section is not applicable nor           D
         attracted where no search of a person is involved. Search and
         recovery from a bag, briefcase, container, etc. does not come
         within the ambit of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, because firstly,
         Section 50 expressly speaks of search of person only. Secondly,
         the section speaks of taking of the person to be searched by the
         gazetted officer or a Magistrate for the purpose of search. Thirdly,    E
         this issue in our considered opinion is no more res integra in view
         of the observations made by this Court in Madan Lal v. State of
         H.P. [(2003) 7 SCC 465]. The Court has observed: (SCC p. 471,
         para 16)
         “16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in         F
         case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search
         of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises (see Kalema
         Tumba v. State of Maharashtra[(1999) 8 SCC 257], State of
         Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] and Gurbax Singh
         v. State of Haryana [(2001) 3 SCC 28]). The language of Section         G
         50 is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a
         person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicles or articles.
         This position was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench
         in Baldev Singh case1. Above being the position, the contention
6
    [(2010) 3 SCC 746]                                                           H
532            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A           regarding non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act is also without
            any substance.”
             16. As regards applicability of the requirements under Section 50
      of the Act are concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of Section
      50 of the Act is confined to “personal search” and not to search of a
B     vehicle or a container or premises.
            17. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution Bench in
      Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states that the conviction
      may not be based “only” on the basis of possession of an illicit article
      recovered from personal search in violation of the requirements under
C     Section 50 of the Act but if there be other evidence on record, such
      material can certainly be looked into.
             In the instant case, the personal search of the accused did not
      result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such
      recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of
D     the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle
      and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely
      because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as
      “personal search” was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to
      invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Any
      such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as aforesaid.
E
              18. The decision of this Court in Dilip’s case, however, has not
      adverted to the distinction as discussed hereinabove and proceeded to
      confer advantage upon the accused even in respect of recovery from
      the vehicle, on the ground that the requirements of Section 50 relating to
      personal search were not complied with. In our view, the decision of
F     this Court in said judgment in Dilip’s case is not correct and is opposed
      to the law laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh and other judgments.
             19. Since in the present matter, seven bags of poppy husk each
      weighing 34 kgs. were found from the vehicle which was being driven
      by accused- Baljinder Singh with the other accused accompanying him,
G     their presence and possession of the contraband material stood completely
      established.
            20. In the circumstances, the acquittal recorded by the High Court,
      in our considered view, was not correct. We, therefore, set aside the
      view taken by the High Court.
H
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. BALJINDER SINGH & ANR.                              533
                 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

       While allowing this appeal, we restore the order of conviction         A
recorded by the Trial Court and hold accused Baljinder Singh and Khushi
Khan to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 50 of the Act.
We, however, reduce their substantive sentence from 12 years to 10
years while maintaining other incidents of sentence namely, the payment
of fine and the default sentence unaltered.
                                                                              B
      The appeals stand allowed in aforesaid terms.
       21. Both the accused are given time till 15th November, 2019 to
surrender before the concerned police station to undergo remaining
sentence. In case, the accused fail to surrender within said period, they
shall immediately be taken into custody by the concerned Police Station.      C
A copy of this judgment shall be communicated to the concerned Chief
Judicial Magistrate and Police Station for compliance. The compliance
in that behalf shall be reported to this Court on or before 01.12.2019.

Divya Pandey                                               Appeals allowed.   D




                                                                              E




                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H