The search and seizure procedures of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act,1985 ) matters have recently come to light as the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that “spot” would not constitute a place where any contemplated vehicle or person is intercepted but that place where such search is conducted and recovery of articles resultantly are made.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi while dismissing the bail application put forth by the applicants charged U/s 8/20,25, 27(a)/28 R/w Section 29 Section NDPS Act, delivered this judgement.
Section 20 NDPS Act 1985, deals primarily with the “Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis”, Section 27(a) NDPS Act 1985, contemplates “punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders”, Sections 25, 28 and 29 NDPS Act 1985, deal with “punishment for allowing premises etc., to be used for commission of an offence”,” Punishment for contravention of section 8A” and “Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy” respectively.
The prosecution narrative held that the applicants along with other co accused were on their way from Andhra Pradesh to Shahjapur in the car. Upon receiving a lead from some reliable source regarding the enormous quantity of contraband the car was intercepted by the police on a concocted enquiry. The car was then carried to the nearest police station where the necessary search and seizure was done. It was at this “spot” that an overwhelming quantity of 80.351 kg of Ganja was deduced. This was followed by the necessary paper work and the offences of the applicants and other co accused were framed as per the above mentioned sections of the NDPS Act of 1985.
The applicants have agreed to being intercepted on the road whereas the search and seizure was done much later in the police station. However they have used this contention as a ground in their bail application stating that all procedures should have been done by the police where the interception was done. The applicants have tried to show this as a lacuna in the police’s procedures. The applicants furthered that the police did not destroy the seized stuff.
The state on the contrary has denied the prevalence of such error and has stated due diligence from their end. The State has also reiterated the exorbitant quantity seized and the criminal backgrounds of few applicants. Thus, the State opined the denial of bail to the applicants.
The Court while examining the charge sheet was convinced that the state committed no error in destroying the contraband and in seeking the requisite permission from the court before its perusal. The applicants’ reference to the Mohanlal case was also comprehended and it was held that,
“Spot does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but it means a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made”
The Court thus denied bail considering the limitations set forth U/s 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Case Title: Kamrudddin vs. Union of India with connected matters.
