D.K. Jain, J. - (1.) The short question arising for consideration in this batch of appeals is whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") casts a duty on the empowered officer to inform the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desires or whether a mere enquiry by the said officer as to whether the suspect would like to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer can be said to be due compliance with the mandate of the said Section
(2.) When these appeals came up for consideration before a bench of three Judges, it was noticed that there was a divergence of opinion between the decisions of this Court in the case of Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa, (2000) 1 SCC 707, Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P., (2004) 2 SCC 56 on the one hand and Krishna Kanwar (Smt) alias Thakuraeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 2 SCC 608 on the other, with regard to the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172, in particular regarding the question whether before conducting search, the concerned police officer is merely required to ask the suspect whether he would like to be produced before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer for the purpose of search or is the suspect required to be made aware of the existence of his right in that behalf under the law. It would be expedient to extract the relevant portion of the order: When the matter came up before this Court, it was found that in some of the decisions rendered by this Court, a slightly different view was taken than what was expressed by the Constitution Bench with regard to interpretation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In the case Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa (2001) 1 SCC 707, a Bench of three Honble Judges held that even when the searching officer informed him that "if you wish you may be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate"; it was held that it was in substantial compliance with the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the Court observed that it did not agree with the contention that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In another decision of this Court in Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P., (2004) 2 SCC 56, the following information was conveyed to the accused: "By way of this notice, you are informed that we have received information that you are illegally carrying opium with you, therefore, we are required to search your scooter and you for this purpose. You would like to give me search or you would like to be searched by a gazetted officer or by a Magistrate". This was held to be substantial compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In Krishan Kanwar (Smt.) Alias Thakuraeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 2 SCC 608, the same question was considered and it was held that there is no specific form prescribed or initiated for conveying the information required to be given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and it was held that "what is necessary is that the accused (suspect) should be made aware of the existence of his right to be searched in the presence of one of the officers named in the section itself. Since no specific mode or manner is prescribed or intended, the court has to see the substance and not the form of intimation. Whether the requirement of Section 50 have been met is a question which is to be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any sweeping generalization and/or a straitjacket formula. ********** Thus, in a way, it all depends on the oral evidence of the officer who conducts search, in case nothing is mentioned in the search mahazar or any other contemporaneous document prepared at the time of search. In view of the large number of cases coming up under the provisions of the NDPS Act the interpretation of Section 50 of the Act requires a little more clarification as its applicability is quite frequent in many cases. In appreciating the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singhs case (supra), we have noticed that conflicting decisions have been rendered by this Court. We feel that the matter requires some clarification by a larger Bench. The matter be placed before the Honble Chief Justice of India for taking further action in this regard. That is how these appeals came to be placed before this Constitution Bench.
(3.) Since the cases have come up before us for a limited purpose of clarification as to the interpretation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singhs case (supra), we deem it unnecessary to state the background facts, giving rise to these appeals.;