JAYENDRAGIRI ANANDGIRI GOSWAMI VS. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND ANR. (2005) CRI LJ 3190

Introduction:

Jayendragiri Anandgiri Goswami Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr[1]. is a significant case that deals with the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, of 1985[2]. This case was heard and decided by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, consisting of Justice Anant S. Dave and Justice K.M. Thaker. The case deals with the powers of the police to search and arrest individuals suspected of drug offenses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Suaibo Iblow Cassama Vs. Union of India[3]. He submitted that when the court was asked to consider a similar case in the said case, it was convinced that the provisions of Article 22 (2)[4] of the Constitution of India prevailed over the provisions of Articles 57[5] and 167[6] of the constitution. Criminal Procedure Act and N.D.P.S. He also referred to the Madras High Court Full Bench decision in the case of Roshan Beevi Vs. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu[7] reported in Cri LJ 134 in 1984. He submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the said judgment clearly distinguished between the terms “secondary power” and “care” and said that the terms are not synonymous He claimed that a full bench of the Madras High Court had held in the said decision that in every case of arrest, officers are in the custody of the accused. However, this is not the case in all maintenance cases. He drew my attention to paragraph 23 and also paragraphs 26 and 30 of the judgment. He also drew my attention to paragraph 48 of the judgment where a Bench of the Madras High Court dealt with a similar matter.

Facts of the Case and Adjoint Case Laws

In the case of Jayendragiri Anandgiri Goswami Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr., the petitioner Jayendragiri Anandgiri Goswami were arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on the suspicion of possessing and trafficking drugs. The petitioner challenged his arrest as illegal and violative of his fundamental rights. The petitioner contended that the police did not follow the due process of law while conducting the search and arrest.

The Narcotics Control Bureau, the respondent in the case, argued that the arrest was made in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and that the police had followed the due process of law while conducting the search and arrest. The respondent argued that Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, was a necessary provision to effectively combat drug trafficking and that it did not violate the fundamental rights of individuals.

The case was heard and decided by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, consisting of Justice Anant S. Dave and Justice K.M. Thaker. The court examined the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and the legality of the search and arrest of the petitioner. The court observed that the power given to the police under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, was a drastic power that needed to be exercised with great care and caution. The court held that the provision was not violative of Article 21[8] of the Indian Constitution, as it provided for safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power. The court also held that the provision was necessary for effective enforcement of the NDPS Act, 1985 and that the police were justified in using it to combat drug trafficking.

However, the court also held that the police must follow the due process of law while exercising the power under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The court observed that the police officer must have reasonable belief or information that the person has committed an offense punishable under the Act. The court further held that the officer must inform the person being searched of his rights, including the right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate.

In this case, the court found that the police had followed the due process of law while conducting the search and arrest of the petitioner. The court observed that the police officer had reasonable belief or information that the petitioner had committed an offense punishable under the NDPS Act, 1985. The court also noted that the police officer had informed the petitioner of his rights and the reasons for the search and arrest.

Contention of Petitioner and Respondent Supporting their Arguments

The petitioner, Jayendragiri Anandgiri Goswami, contended that his arrest was illegal and violated his fundamental rights. He argued that the police did not follow the due process of law while conducting the search and arrest. He further contended that Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which allowed the police to search and arrest individuals without a warrant, was unconstitutional and violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner further contended that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which allows the police to search and arrest individuals suspected of drug offenses without a warrant, was unconstitutional and violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

On the other hand, the respondent, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), argued that the arrest was made in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. The respondent argued that the police had followed the due process of law while conducting the search and arrest. They further contended that Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, was a necessary provision to effectively combat drug trafficking and that it did not violate the fundamental rights of individuals.

The court also held that the police officer must record the reasons for the search and arrest in writing and inform the nearest magistrate of the same. The court further held that the officer must also inform the person being arrested of the grounds of arrest and his right to legal representation.

Statutes Involved in The Case

The case primarily deals with the constitutional validity of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, provides the police with the power to search and arrest individuals suspected of drug offenses without a warrant. The section provides that any officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above is empowered to search and arrest a person suspected of committing an offense under the NDPS Act, 1985[9], without a warrant. The officer is required to have a reasonable belief or information that the person has committed an offense punishable under the Act.

Before conducting the search and arrest, the officer must inform the person being searched of his rights, including the right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. The officer must also inform the person being arrested of the grounds of arrest and his right to legal representation.

The section also provides that the officer must record the reasons for the search and arrest in writing and inform the nearest magistrate of the same. The officer must also prepare a memo of the articles seized during the search and provide a copy of the same to the person from whom the articles were seized.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, is a drastic power that needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The section provides for safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of power by the police, but it is still a controversial provision that has been the subject of several legal challenges.

Judgment by the Honourable Judges

The court observed that the power given to the police under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, was a drastic power that needed to be exercised with great care and caution. The court held that the provision was not violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as it provided for safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power. The court also held that the provision was necessary for effective enforcement of the NDPS Act, 1985 and that the police were justified in using it to combat drug trafficking.

The Court further observed that in the present case, the NCB officials had not complied with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The officials had not informed the petitioner of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, nor had they informed him of the grounds of his arrest. The officials had also not prepared a memo of the articles seized during the search and had not provided a copy of the same to the petitioner.

The Court held that the non-compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985, rendered the search and arrest of the petitioner illegal. The Court further observed that even if the search and seizure were legal, the NCB officials had failed to establish the essential elements of the offense under the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court noted that the prosecution had not produced any evidence to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the petitioner was a narcotic or psychotropic substance. The Court, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Conclusion of the Case Commentary with Personal Views

The case of Jayendragiri Anandgiri Goswami Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr. 2005 Cri LJ 3190 is an important judgment that highlights the need for police officials to comply with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 when conducting searches and seizures under the Act. The judgment also highlights the importance of establishing the essential elements of the offense under the NDPS Act, 1985, before initiating legal proceedings against an accused. The Court has emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and the prosecution must produce sufficient evidence to establish the essential elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

Overall, the judgment serves as a reminder that the powers provided to police officials under the NDPS Act, 1985, must be exercised with care and caution, and the due process of law must be followed to protect the rights of citizens.

---

[1] Jayendragiri Anandgiri Goswami Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr. (2005) Cri LJ 3190

[2] S. 50, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

[3] Suibao Iblow Cassama v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 502

[4] Art. 22(2), the Constitution of India

[5] Art. 57, the Constitution of India

[6] Art. 167, the Constitution of India

[7] Roshan Beevi Vs. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 6 SCC 146

[8] Art. 21, the Constitution of India

[9] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

This Article is Written by Rishaan Gupta of National Law University Delhi, Intern under Legal Vidhiya