NARAYANASWAMY RAVISHANKARversusASSTT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

                 NARA YANASWAMY RA VISHANKAR                                          A
                               v.
      ASSTT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
-.
                                 OCTOBER 3, 2002

           [9.N. KIRPAL, CJ., ARJJIT PASAYAT AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]                     B

          Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:

           Ss. 42, 43, 50 and 57-Heroin recovered from suitcase belonging to
     accused-Search and seizure taking place at the Airport-Trial court acquitting C
     the accused for non-compliance of ss.42 and 50-High Court convicting and
     sentencing him for JO years RI-In appeal before Supreme Court pleas of
     non-compliance of ss. 42 and 57 raised by accused were rejected-Held, the
     search and seizure having taken place at a public place, namely, the Airport,
     provisions of s. 43 were applicable-Therefore, non-compliance uf s.42, if D
     any, is wholly irrelevant-As regards alleged non-compliance of s. 57, the
     record shows that arrest of accused was revealed to superior officer, namely,
     the Deputy Director-No search and seizure was conducted on the person of
     the accused and, therefore, provisions of s.50 were not attracted-High Court
     rightly convicted the acc11Sed
                                                                                      E
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
     770 of 2002.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.2002 of the Chennai High
     Court in Crl.A.No. 346 of 1992.
                                                                                      F
          N. Natarajan, Senthil Jagadeesan and V. Ramasubramanian for the
     Appellant.

          B. Krishna Prasad (NP) for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :                            G
          We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

          In the instant case, according to the prosecution, 5940 gms. of heroin
     concealed in the bottom of a suitcase alleged to be belonging to the appellant
                                                                                      H
                                          121
    122                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A was recovered when he was attempting to transport the same from the
    International Airport, Chennai to Singapore. The recovery memo was prepared
    on 5th January, 1987 at 3.00 A.M. and thereafter the appellant was arrested
    on that day at 2.00 P.M. The trial court acquitted the appellant by holding
    that mandatory provis.ions like Section 42 and Section 50 of the Narcotic
B   Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act")
    had not been complied with.

         In appeal, the High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and
    convicted the appellant and sentenced him to I 0 years' imprisonment and to
    pay a fine of Rs. I lakh and in default to undergo RI for one month.
c         In this appeal, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for
    the appeilant that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not
    been complied with. He further states that there was delay in arresting the
    appellant which had not been explained and further that the provisions of
    Section 57 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature have not been
D   complied with.

          In the instant case, according to the documents on record and the
    evidence of the witnesses, the search and seizure took place at the Airport
    which is a public place. This being so, it is the provisions of Section 43 of
    the NDPS Act which would be applicable. Further, as Section 42 of the
E NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case, the seizure having been
    effected in a public place, the question of non-compliance, if any, of the
    provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is wholly irrelevant. Furthermore,
    in the Mahazar which was prepared, it is clearly stated that the seizure was
    made by PW- I. The Mahazar was no doubt drawn by one S Jayanth. But, the
F · contention of the learned senior counsel that prosecution version is vulnerable,
    because· Jayanth has not been examined, is of no consequence because it is
    PW-I who has conducted the seizure. With regard to the alleged non-
    compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, the High Court has rightly noted
    that PW-3 has stated that the arrest of the accused was revealed to his
    immediate superior officer, namely, the Deputy Director.
G
          It was also contended by the learned senior counsel that the ground on
    which the appellant was arrested was not communicated to him. We find no
    merit in this because the arrest memo clearly indicates the offence stated to
    have been committed by the appellant under the NDPS Act. Further, the
    record also shows that copy of the arrest memo Exh. P-20 was received by
H   the appellant.
                                                                                             23
       NARA YANASWAMY RA VIS HANK AR ••.ASSTT. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE J


      In the instant case, no search or seizure was conducted on the person A
of the accused and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act
were not attracted. The High Court was, therefore, right in coming to the
conclusion which it did.

         We do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
                                                                                                  B
R.P.                                                                      Appeal dismissed.