Section 50 NDPS Act Formalities Not Required If Recovery Is From Bag, Not Person: Supreme Court Reaffirms

The Supreme Court has overturned the Kerala High Court's acquittal of a man charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and restored the trial court's conviction.

The appeal by Special Leave Petition was filed by the State challenging the High Court's decision dated May 23, 2023, which had acquitted the respondent, reversing his conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

The Bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol reaffirmed, "The requirement of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is no more res integra, and this Court, in unambiguous terms, held that if the recovery was not from the person and whereas from a bag carried by him, the procedure formalities prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with."

The case pertains to a patrol operation conducted on January 10, 2019, where the respondent was found in possession of 2.050 kg of Ganja, concealed in a bag. The Trial Court had initially convicted the respondent based on the evidence presented, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000. In the absence of payment, an additional six months of imprisonment was ordered.

The Kerala High Court, however, had set aside this conviction on the grounds that the mandatory formalities under Section 50 of the NDPS Act—requiring personal search procedures—were not followed, thus deeming the search and seizure illegal. The High Court's judgment cited a precedent from Sidhik v. State of Kerala (2018) to support its decision.

The State, dissatisfied with the High Court's ruling, argued before the Apex Court that Section 50 formalities were not required as the contraband was recovered from a bag and not from the person of the respondent. The appellant's counsel relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment in Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023), which clarified that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only when the search is of a person, not when the recovery is made from a bag or similar item carried by the individual.

"In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, and it requires interference. Accordingly, the impugned judgment whereunder the respondent was acquitted stands set aside and as a necessary sequel we restore the judgment of the Trial Court to the extent it found guilty the respondent under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act," the Court said. 

The Court reaffirmed that the legal precedent set by previous rulings clearly established that Section 50 formalities are unnecessary when contraband is recovered from a bag or similar container.

Given these circumstances, the Court quashed the High Court's acquittal and reinstated the Trial Court's conviction of the respondent under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. However, the Court modified the sentence, considering the fact that the respondent had already served four years, four months, and twenty-one days of his sentence.

The Court ordered that this period would suffice as the corporeal sentence, but mandated the payment of the Rs. 50,000 fine within 30 days. Failure to pay would result in the respondent serving the default sentence as originally ordered by the Trial Court.

"We are of the view that after reversing the judgment of acquittal and restoring the judgment of conviction imposed on the respondent by the Trial Court, the corporeal sentence for the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act can be confined to the period of corporeal sentence already undergone by the respondent. Ordered accordingly. Furthermore, for effecting payment of fine viz., Rs.50,000/- we grant 30 days time from today to the respondent. However, we make it clear that in case of failure on the part of the respondent in effecting payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-, within the stipulated time, he shall undergo the default sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court as per its judgment," the Court said in its order dated August 20. 

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Appeal. 

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Prabhu 

Appearance:-

Petitioner: AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Farhad Tehmu Marolia, Amar Nath Singh, Shivam Sai

Respondent: Advocate Manoj Kumar (Amicus Curiae)

Click here to read/download the Order