TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- with default stipulation by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bhopal. The conviction and sentence were maintained by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by the impugned judgment. 2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution during trial are as follows: 3. On 31.3.2001, while Inspector Ajay Singh Bisen (PW-10) was on duty at G.R.P. Police Station, Bhopal, he received an information that two persons had got down from Madhya Pradesh Express and were waiting at platform No. 2 for Coolie with suitcases and bags in which they were carrying contraband article (Ganja). This information was recorded by him (Ex.P-25) and thereafter, he proceeded with his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of of endorsement to the superior officer as mandated in Section 42(2) of the Act. Before the search was made the accused persons were not intimated of their right to be searched in the presence of prescribed authority. There was also non-compliance with the requirements of Sections 55 and 57. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that both the trial Court and High Court have analysed the factual and legal position in detail. There is no infraction as alleged and the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity. 7. The requirements vis-a-vis Sections 42 and 50 have been dealt with in many cases, more particularly by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 1999CriLJ3672 . In para 17 the conclusions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrest without warrant or authorisation. - (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence or any other department 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 a peon, sepoy or constable) 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 he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own any information in writing under Sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 9. Section 42 enables certain officers duly empowered in this behalf by the Central or State Government, as the case may be, to enter into and search any building, conveyance or enclosed place for the purpose mentioned therein without any warrant or authorization. Section 42 deal with building, conveyance or enclosed place whereas Section 43 deals with power of seizure and arrest in public place. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 42 the method to be adopted and the procedure to be followed have been laid down. If the concerned officer has reason to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. Therefore, Sub-section (2) only comes into operation where the officer concerned does not enumerated acts, in case any offence under Chapter IV has been committed or documents etc. are concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. Therefore, the commission of the act or concealment of document etc. must be in any building, conveyance or enclosed place. 11. The trial Court and the High Court after analyzing the evidence have come to hold that there was compliance of Section 42(2) in the sense that requisite documents were sent to the superior officer, though per se Section 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of Section 50 shows that it only applies in 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 and Anr. 2000CriLJ507 , Baldev Singh's case (supra), Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana 2001CriLJ1166 . The language of Section 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's case (supra). Above being the position, the contention regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act is also without any substance. 15. A similar question was examined in Madan Lal and An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
