In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court has underscored the significance of informing accused individuals about their rights concerning searches conducted under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The apex court's observation came during a case in which the accused had been convicted by a Trial Court under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act in 1985. While their appeals were dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, a subsequent appeal brought them before the Supreme Court.

The pivotal contention put forth before the highest court was that the accused had not been properly informed about their entitlement to request a search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. In this context, the court noted the existence of a consent letter signed by the accused, indicating their voluntary agreement to undergo a body search. However, it was deemed crucial that the accused were not apprised of their right to opt for a search under the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

The Supreme Court's decision rested upon a previous landmark ruling by a Constitution bench in the case of Vijaysinh Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat. The Constitution Bench had emphatically stated that the obligation of the authorized officer to adhere to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not only mandatory but also required strict adherence. Any failure to comply with this provision would cast doubt upon the legality of recovering illicit articles during searches and could even invalidate convictions based solely on such recoveries.

Cognizant of the precedents set by the Vijaysinh Jadeja case, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellants' conviction could not be upheld. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate release of the appellants if they were still in custody.

Case Title: Mina Pun vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Click here to read/download Judgment