Supreme Court Defines Role of Gazetted Officers in NDPS Searches

Post By 24law
December 7, 2024

In a significant judgment rendered in State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir (Criminal Appeal No. 4931 of 2024), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressed the interpretation and application of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The controversy revolved around whether the language used in the notice provided to the accused, specifically the reference to “any Gazetted Officer” instead of “the nearest Gazetted Officer,” constituted a violation of the statutory mandate under Section 50, thereby entitling the respondent to bail.

The present appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Delhi, which had granted bail to the respondent, Mohd. Jabir, on the ground that the notice under Section 50 was not in conformity with the provision. The High Court had opined that the words “nearest Gazetted Officer” are essential to comply with the statutory intent, and the use of the term “any Gazetted Officer” was a deviation that invalidated the search. Aggrieved by this decision, the State approached the Supreme Court, contending that the interpretation adopted by the High Court was flawed and contrary to established principles.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act lays down specific conditions to ensure transparency and safeguard the rights of individuals subject to a search. Sub-section (1) mandates that a person about to be searched must be informed of their right to be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The provision also emphasizes that such an action must be undertaken without unnecessary delay. The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, in interpreting the provision, observed that its primary objective is to provide an impartial safeguard for individuals subjected to searches under the Act. This ensures that the individual is afforded the choice of being searched in the presence of a neutral authority other than the officer conducting the search.

The Court clarified that the expression “nearest Gazetted Officer” must be interpreted with a pragmatic approach, keeping in mind the intent to avoid undue delay and to ensure procedural fairness. The word “nearest” pertains to practical considerations rather than creating a rigid mandate. The Court remarked: "It is obvious that the intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search,"

In the instant case, the Court found that the respondent was duly informed of his rights under Section 50 and that the notice, albeit referring to “any Gazetted Officer,” did not infringe upon the statutory mandate. Furthermore, the respondent did not exercise his right to request the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, which, in the Court's view, indicated compliance with the provision. The Court held that procedural safeguards under Section 50 are indeed mandatory and must be strictly adhered to, as observed in Arif Khan alias Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand [(2018) 18 SCC 380]. However, the present case demonstrated substantial compliance, and no violation of the statutory requirements was discernible.

In setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court underscored that procedural technicalities must not be construed in a manner that obstructs the dispensation of justice. The recovery of 500 grams of heroin, categorized as a commercial quantity, coupled with the respondent's involvement in another case under the NDPS Act, warranted the setting aside of the bail order. The Court directed the respondent to surrender before the authorities by December 27, 2024, and clarified that the observations made in its order would not prejudice the merits of the ongoing trial.

This judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to balancing procedural safeguards with practical enforcement of the NDPS Act. It emphasizes the necessity of adhering to statutory intent without allowing rigid interpretations to impede justice, thereby providing clarity on the obligations of law enforcement under Section 50.