2005 INSC 1083
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                               Union of India

                                                      Vs.

                                                 Major Singh

                                           Crl.A.No.353 of 2000

                                 (B. N. Agarwal and A. K. Mathur JJ.)

                                                 30.11.2005

                                                JUDGMENT

B. N. Agarwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Respondents were convicted by the trial court under Section 8 read with Section 15 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and each one
of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years and to pay
fine of Rs. 1.5 lacs; in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. On
appeal being preferred by the accused persons, the High Court acquitted all the respondents.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.

3. The High Court has recorded the acquittal on two counts; firstly, the provisions of Section
50 of the Act and secondly, under Section 42(2) of the Act have not been complied with. So
far as Section 50 of the Act is concerned, in the present case, the same shall have no
application as the search and seizure was made from a truck and not from person of any of
the accused persons. This question has been examined by a Three Judge Bench of this Court
in the case of State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar, (relied on), in which it has been categorically
laid down that search of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container which is being
carried by a person is not search of a person, as such the provisions of Section 50 of the Act
would not apply in case search and seizure is not made from person of the accused. In the
present case, as the search and seizure have not been made from the person of the accused
but from the truck, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act shall have no application. #

4. Turning now to Section 42(2) of the Act, in this regard, it may be stated that from the
prosecution case and evidence it would be clear that search and seizure was made of a public
carrier at a public place and 127 bags of poppy straw (opium) was seized from a public
carrier. This point is also concluded by a judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh and others, (relied on), in which it has been categorically laid
down that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search

1  SpotLaw
is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 for
searching the vehicle between sunset and sunrise. In the case in hand the search was made of
a public conveyance at a public place between sunrise and sunset. Therefore, the provisions
of Section 42(2) of the Act shall have no application to the case. This being the position, the
High Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents and the trial court was quite
justified in convicting them.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of acquittal rendered by the High
Court is set aside and conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the
respondents are restored. Bail bonds of the respondents who are on bail are cancelled and
they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of
sentence for which compliance report must be sent to this Court within a period of one
month.

2  SpotLaw