Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal of Abdul Rahim @ Raju Abdul Rahman Shaikh under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The accused was found in possession of 1 kg 650 grams of charas in the dickey of his scooter near Ghodasar Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad on 03.03.2000. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, as the accused was not informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The High Court examined the applicability of Section 50 and held that it applies only to personal search and not to search of a vehicle. However, the court noted that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession and that other mandatory provisions like Sections 42 and 57 were not complied with. The court also observed that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs - Section 50 of NDPS Act - Applicability to Vehicle Search - The issue was whether the recovery of charas from the open dickey of a scooter amounted to a 'personal search' requiring compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The court held that Section 50 applies only to search of the person and not to search of a vehicle or baggage, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession and that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, leading to acquittal. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The court reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's acquittal was based on non-compliance of mandatory provisions and lack of evidence of conscious possession, which were plausible findings. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act was justified on the ground of non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and whether the appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC should be allowed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused. The court held that while Section 50 does not apply to vehicle search, the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession and comply with other mandatory provisions, and the trial court's findings were not perverse.
Law Points
- Section 50 of NDPS Act applies only to personal search
- not to search of vehicle or baggage
- Section 20(b)(ii) of NDPS Act
- Section 378 of CrPC
- acquittal appeal
- strict compliance of procedural safeguards
