Notice under NDPS Act should specify rights of accused: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 5

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that merely informing an accused that he has rights under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was not enough. The rights the accused had were also required to be specified for compliance with the mandatory requirements of search under Section 50 of the Act, it said.

“To my mind, merely informing the petitioner that he has rights under the NDPS Act without specifying what these are would not constitute compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 50 sub-section (1) of the NDPS Act,” Justice BS Walia asserted.

The ruling came on a petition filed by an accused for grant of regular bail in a drugs case registered on January 22 under the provisions of the NDPS Act at the Kundli police station in Sonepat district.

Justice Walia said the notice under Section 50 in the case mentioned the petitioner was apprised of his rights. But the notice was absolutely silent as to what rights were apprised to the petitioner. It was not known if petitioner was apprised of his right under Section 50 to be searched in the presence of a magistrate or gazetted officer.

The notice merely mentioned the petitioner was informed of his rights and also the option to get his search conducted by a magistrate or gazetted officer, if he so desired. “The mandatory requirement under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act not having been complied with and the punishment provided for an offence under the NDPS Act being very stringent, the failure to comply with Section 50 NDPS Act renders the recovery of the illicit article suspect,” Justice Walia ruled.

Before parting with the order, Justice Walia said it was not the prosecution’s stand that the petitioner was a person with criminal antecedents or was involved in similar offences earlier. The requirement under Section 50 was not merely a technical breach. The petitioner was not involved in any other case under the NDPS and it could safely be recorded that the court was satisfied with the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of an offence and was unlikely to commit any such offence while on bail. The petition for regular bail was allowed after taking into account the existing position.