Case: SK. RAJU @ ABDUL HAQUE @ JAGGA Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

5 J.S. Negi, the Superintendent, who was part of the raiding party. PW 5 J.S. Negi cannot be called an independent officer. We are not expressing any opinion on the question whether if the respondents had voluntarily expressed that they wanted to be searched before PW 5 J.S. Negi, the search would have been vitiated or not. But PW 10 SI Qureshi could not have given a third option to the respondents when Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act does not provide for it and when such option would frustrate the provisions of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. On this ground also, in our opinion, the search conducted by PW 10 SI Qureshi is vitiated.? The question which arises before us is whether Section 50(1) was required to be complied with when charas was recovered only from the bag of the appellant and no charas was found on his person. Further, if the first question is answered in the affirmative, whether the requirements of Section 50 were strictly complied with by PW-2 and PW-4. 11 As evidenced by Exhibit-3, a first option was given to the appellant. PW- 2 informed him that it was his legal right to be searched either in the presence of a magistrate or in the presence of a gazetted officer. The appellant was then asked to give his option by indicating whether he wanted to be searched by a magistrate or a gazetted officer. The appellant indicated that he wanted the search to be carried out in the presence of a gazetted officer. When PW-4 arrived, he was introduced to the detainee as a gazetted officer. As evidenced by Exhibit-4, PW-4 then gave the appellant a second option. He inquired of him again, whether he wanted to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or in the presence of a magistrate. The appellant reiterated his desire to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. Before the search of the appellant commenced, the gazetted officer asked the appellant whether he wanted to search PW-2 before his own search was carried out by PW-2. The appellant agreed to search PW-2 before the latter carried out his search. On conducting the search, only personal belongings of PW-2 were found by the appellant. On the search of the appellant in the presence of the gazetted officer, a biscuit colour jute bag was recovered from the appellant, and Rs. 2,400/- cash in the denomination of 24 notes of Rs. 100/- each was found in the left pocket of the appellant?s trouser. When the bag was opened, a black polythene cover containing nineteen rectangular broken sheets of a blackish / deep brown colour weighing 1.5 kilograms was recovered. The sheets were tested and were found to be charas. PW-2 conducted a search of the bag of the appellant as well as of the appellant?s trousers. Therefore, the search conducted by PW-2 was not only of the bag which the appellant was carrying, but also of the appellant?s person. Since the search of the person of the appellant was also involved, Section 50 would be attracted in this case. Accordingly, PW-2 was required to comply with the requirements of Section 50(1). As soon as the search of a person takes place, the requirement of mandatory compliance with Section 50 is attracted, irrespective of whether contraband is recovered from the person of the detainee or not. It was, therefore, imperative for PW-2 to inform the appellant of his legal right to be searched in the presence of either a gazetted officer or a magistrate. From Exhibit-3, it can be discerned that the appellant was informed of his legal right to be searched in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer. The appellant opted for the latter alternative. Exhibit-4 is a record of the events after the arrival of PW-4 on the scene. After the arrival of PW-4, the appellant was once again asked by him, whether he wished to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. This was the second option which was presented to him. When he reiterated his desire to be searched before a gazetted officer, PW-4 inquired of the appellant whether he wished to search PW-2 before his own search was conducted by PW-2. The appellant agreed to search PW-2. Only the personal belongings of PW-2 were found by the appellant. It was only after this that a search of the appellant was conducted and charas recovered. Before the appellant?s search was conducted, both PW- 2 and PW-4 on different occasions apprised the appellant of his legal right to be searched either in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. The options given by both PW-2 and PW-4 were unambiguous. Merely because the appellant was given an option of searching PW-2 before the latter conducted his search, would not vitiate the search. In Parmanand, in addition to the option of being searched by the gazetted officer or the magistrate, the detainee was given a ‘third? alternative by the empowered officer which was to be searched by an officer who was a part of the raiding team. This was found to be contrary to the intent of Section 50(1). The option given to the appellant of searching PW-2 in the case at hand, before the latter searched the appellant, did not vitiate the process in which a search of the appellant was conducted. The search of the appellant was as a matter of fact conducted in the presence of PW-4, a gazetted officer, in consonance with the voluntary communication made by the appellant to both PW-2 and PW-4. There was strict compliance with the requirements of Section 50(1) as stipulated by this Court in Vijaysinh. 12 As we have already held that Section 50 was attracted in the present case, we do not need to decide on the applicability of Namdi to the facts of the present case. We have held that Section 50 was complied with.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]On conducting the search, only personal belongings ofwere found by the appellant. On the search of the appellant in the presence of the gazetted officer, a biscuit colour jute bag was recovered from the appellant, and Rs. 2,400/cash in the denomination of 24 notes of Rs. 100/each was found in the left pocket of the appellant?s trouser. When the bag was opened, a black polythene cover containing nineteen rectangular broken sheets of a blackish / deep brown colour weighing 1.5 kilograms was recovered. The sheets were tested and were found to be charas.conducted a search of the bag of the appellant as well as of the appellant?s trousers. Therefore, the search conducted bywas not only of the bag which the appellant was carrying, but also of the appellant?s person. Since the search of the person of the appellant was also involved, Section 50 would be attracted in this case. Accordingly,was required to comply with the requirements of Section 50(1). As soon as the search of a person takes place, the requirement of mandatory compliance with Section 50 is attracted, irrespective of whether contraband is recovered from the person of the detainee or not. It was, therefore, imperative forto inform the appellant of his legal right to be searched in the presence of either a gazetted officer or a magistrate. Fromit can be discerned that the appellant was informed of his legal right to be searched in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer. The appellant opted for the latter alternative.is a record of the events after the arrival ofon the scene. After the arrival ofthe appellant was once again asked by him,whether he wished to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or aThis was the second option which was presented to him. When he reiterated his desire to be searched before a gazetted officer,inquired of the appellant whether he wished to searchbefore his own search was conducted byThe appellant agreed to searchOnly the personal belongings ofwere found by the appellant. It was only after this that a search of the appellant was conducted and charas recovered. Before the appellant?s search was conducted, both PWon different occasions apprised the appellant of his legal right to be searched either in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. The options given by bothwere unambiguous. Merely because the appellant was given an option of searchingbefore the latter conducted his search, would not vitiate the search. In Parmanand, in addition to the option of being searched by the gazetted officer or the magistrate, the detainee was given a ‘third? alternative by the empowered officer which was to be searched by an officer who was a part of the raiding team. This was found to be contrary to the intent of Section 50(1). The option given to the appellant of searchingin the case at hand, before the latter searched the appellant, did not vitiate the process in which a search of the appellant was conducted. The search of the appellant was as a matter of fact conducted in the presence ofa gazetted officer, in consonance with the voluntary communication made by the appellant to both4. There was strict compliance with the requirements of Section 50(1) as stipulated by this Court in Vijaysinh. 12 As we have already held that Section 50 was attracted in the present case, we do not need to decide on the applicability of Namdi to the facts of the present case. We have held that Section 50 was complied with.