Case Title:
State Of Rajasthan Vs Parmanand & Anr
Date of Judgment:
28th February 1947
Bench:
Ranjana Prakash Desai, Madan B. Lokur
Parties:
Appellant – State of Rajasthan
Respondents – Parmanand & Anr.
Subject
An appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan arguing that the acquittal of the respondents was bad in law and that the joint notice consent obtained from the respondents was enough to satisfy Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Important Provisions
Section 50 of the NDPS Act –Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.
Overview
Sub-inspector Meena received a piece of information that the respondents were about to handover 10kg of Opium.
The information was entered into the diary by SI Meena and a raiding party was formed along with 2 independent witnesses.
The respondents were caught in the presence of independent witnesses and informed about the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
One of the appellants gave in writing consent for both of them stating that they were ready to get themselves searched by the SI and not in the presence of the nearest magistrate of gazetted officer.
The respondents were arrested for carrying opium which was 9kg and 600gms. Respondent No.1 was charged for the offense under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the NDPS Act and Respondent No.2 was charged under Section 8 read with Sections 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The respondents pleaded not guilty and stated that the police had conspired and framed them and that the case was false.The respondents were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs each.
The respondents filed an appeal against the Rajasthan High Court and were acquitted by the Court. Therefore, in this current case, the State has filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents by the Rajasthan High Court.
Issues raised
Whether individual notices have to be provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act for obtaining consent from the accused.
Arguments Advanced by the Appellant
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conclusion reached by the Rajasthan High Court stating that there was no compliance with section 50 of the NDPS Act was bad in law.
A written notice was produced and only after the consent of the respondents, the search was initiated.
The High Court was wrong in disbelieving independent witnesses. Thereby, the order produced by the High Court was ‘bad in law’ and was liable to be set aside.
Arguments Advanced by the Respondents
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was a joint notice and not an individual notice. The respondents were entitled to receive individual notices.
The counsel relied upon the decisions taken in Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [1997(1) CRIMES 242] and Dharamveer Lekhram Sharma Vs. The State of Maharashtra [2001(1) CRIMES 586] to confirm the above-made statement.
Thereby the counsel argued that the search was a farce in nature and the decision taken by the Rajasthan High court was right.
Judgment Analysis
On the notice, it was found that the consent of respondent No.2 was present while respondent No.1 had not consented.The respondent No.1 had not given individual consent and the bag of opium was found from him.
In the case ofState of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172], it was held that strict compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was mandatory.
Joint communication of consent under section 50 of the NDPS Act would disrupt the purpose of the section. Section 50 of the NDPS Act is the minimum safeguard available to an accused and thereby the use of it should be clear, unambiguous, and individual.
The respondents were informed that they could be searched by the magistrate, gazetted officer, or before JS Negi, the SI who was part of the raiding party. JS Negi was not an independent officer but rather a part of the raiding party. Thereby the search conducted by JS Negi violates the whole purpose of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Conclusion
The Hon’ble Court concluded by stating that there was a clear violation of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act and that the respondents had to be provided with individual notices for providing consent. Therefore, the conviction of the respondents was illegal and the acquittal of the respondents by the Rajasthan High Court was right. The appeal was hence dismissed.
To know more about NDPS Act, click here
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
