Non-Compliance Of S.50 NDPS Act Vitiates Conviction If Based Solely On Recovery Made During Illegal Search: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that non compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act vitiates conviction and sentence if it is based solely on the recovery made during the illegal search. “While non-compliance with Section 50 does not necessarily vitiate the entire trial, it does vitiate the conviction and sentence if based solely on the recovery made during such illegal search. This is because it undermines the fairness of the trial,” Justice Ajay Digpaul observed.Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, stipulates conditions under which search of an accused shall be conducted.The Court observed that an illicit article seized from an accused during a search, which violates the mandate of Section 50, cannot be used as admissible evidence of unlawful possession under the NDPS Act.“However, other material recovered during such a search may be used as relevant and legally admissible in the trial,” the Court said. The observations were made while denying bail to a woman in an NDPS Act case. 30 grams of Heroin was recovered from her premises. It was alleged that she was part of an organized network engaged in the illicit trafficking of narcotic substances. As per the Delhi Police, the woman was not merely an accessory but an active conspirator under Section 29 of the NDPS Act in the offence involving recovery of 300 grams of heroin from co-accused. Denying bail to her, the Court noted that the police obtained permission for search of her residence, whereupon, reaching to her place, along with the raiding party and co-accused persons, she was duly informed of the search and of the case registered under the NDPS Act, prior to any recovery attempt, as reflected in the chargesheet. It further noted that the chargesheet recorded that the search and arrest of the woman accused was undertaken in the presence and under instructions of an SI and one woman head constable.“Thus, the arrest and search of the petitioner in the instant case was undertaken in light of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act,” the Court said. “The search of her person was conducted post-arrest, in a routine manner, and a mobile phone was recovered, which, later on, during investigation, as per the chargesheet, corroborates the fact that she was indeed in regular contact with the co-accused persons. Even though the same is actually a matter of trial, yet, at this stage, while deciding bail, this Court does not find any reason to accept the applicability of Section 50,” it added. Title: SHAHIDA v. THE STATE N.C.T. OF DELHICitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 990Click here to read order

Non-Compliance Of S.50 NDPS Act Vitiates Conviction If Based Solely On Recovery Made During Illegal Search: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags