TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal (crl.) 222 of 1997 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2004 - Arijit Pasayat, JJ. JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by my learned and respected Brother that the opinion of Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat Laboratory was not to be excluded. However, I am unable to agree with the views as regards Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Baldev Singh s case (supra) m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hows 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. (JT 1999 (8) SC 293), The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (JT 1999 (4) SC 595), Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana (2001(3) SCC 28). The language of Section 50 is implicitly clear that the search has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 50 was not applicable. Baldev s case (supra) was referred to hold that Section 50 in case of search comes into play only in case of search by a person as distinguished from search from any premises etc. The position was also highlighted recently in Madan LaL Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 AIR SCW 3969). Above being the position the High Court was justified in holding that Section 50 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
