LI Network
Published on: 30 August 2023 at 18:31 IST
The Supreme Court has underscored that neglecting to inform accused individuals about their entitlement to undergo a search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer constitutes a breach of the protective provision enshrined in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
In a recent case, the accused were found guilty by the Trial Court under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Despite their appeals, the Allahabad High Court upheld the convictions. The accused had served both a substantial ten-year prison term and an additional six-month sentence for failing to pay the imposed fine.
Upon appealing to the Supreme Court, it was argued that the appellants had not been apprised of their right to request that their body search be carried out in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
The court recognized that the accused had signed a consent form indicating their voluntary acceptance of a body search. However, the court highlighted that crucially, the appellants had not been informed about their prerogative to undergo a search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer.
Referencing the legal precedent established by a Constitution bench in the case of Vijaysinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, the court emphasized that this failure amounted to a violation of the safeguards outlined in Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
In the Vijaysinh Jadeja case, the Constitution Bench had articulated that the obligation of the authorized officer under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act is mandatory and necessitates strict adherence. Non-compliance with this provision renders the retrieval of illegal items questionable and taints convictions grounded solely on evidence from such searches.
Consequently, the court declared that the conviction of the accused could not be upheld under these circumstances. If the appellants remain in custody, the court directed their immediate release.