State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand MANU/SC/0181/2004

CITATION	MANU/SC/0181/2004
DATE OF HEARING	February 27, 2004
COURT	The Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	State of Punjab
RESPONDENT	Makhan Chand
BENCH	Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice B.N. Srikrishna

INTRODUCTION:

The Supreme Court of India delivered this case on February 27, 2004 was State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand. Punjab is the appellant, while Makhan Chand is the respondent, against whom the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had dismissed charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case brought into focus the official formalities prescribed under section 50 of the NDPS Act specifically in connection with the provisions of search and seizure and the desirability of having independent witnesses in the operation. Essentially, the Supreme Court decision gave direction to the interpretations of specific sections of the Act and its implementation as well as to the future judgments and legal proceedings involving narcotic laws.

FACTS OF CASE:

1. Makhan Chand was convicted for the offence under the said act of possessing narcotic substances which also goes by the name of the NDPS Act. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the case and set him free, the State of Punjab took the case to the apex court.
2. The police arrested Makhan Chand for unknown reasons and conducted a search in his house. In the course of the search, narcotic substances were reportedly discovered on him.
3. The primary conceptual focus of this case mainly depends on Section 50 of the NDPS Act which lays down the fact that the person to be searched should be told that he has a right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
4. The High Court thus set free Makhan Chand on the technicality that Section 50 was not compiled at the time of search and seizure.
5. The State of Punjab on the other hand argued that the High Court was wrong in its decision while arguing that the procedural irregularities did not in any extend change the substance of the case.
6. The Supreme Court examined if the requirements stated under Section 50 were adhered to or not, besides holding that violation of those procedural protection affected the conviction. Thus, endorsing the High Court verdict of discharge of Makhan Chand, the Supreme Court underlined the necessity of compliance with every procedural provision as contained in Section 50 of NDPS Act with a view to provide fairness in trials.
7. The judgment sought to remind the police to be more professional in the handling of People’s cases in executing searches and seizures to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected as well as the law.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the police complied with the mandatory procedural norms of explaining to the accused his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
2. Whether the search and seizure done whereby the force did not respect the provision of section 50 rendered a nullity to the whole operation.
3. Whether negligence, if any, of procedures influenced the legal issues of the conviction and the rights of the accused.
4. As to whether the High Court has been right in acquitting Makhan Chand under the non-compliance of the procedural rigidities.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT:

1. The appellant, State of Punjab, stated that the High Court went wrong in acquitting Makhan Chand relying so much on the procedural irregularities flowing from the Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
2. Concerning the accused persons, it was argued that provision of searching them before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer was not observed but it was not a serious procedural irregularity to warrant a conclusion that the entire search and seizure process was unlawful.
3. The appellant further contended that there was evidence enough that Makhan Chand had been in the possession of narcotic substances and these should have been enough for a conviction notwithstanding the formalities.
4. Responding to a question to the same effect as Schreiber framed, the State urged that although there must be strict compliance with the letter of procedural provisions, the fight against trafficking in narcotics and obtaining convictions of the offenders under the NDPS statute cannot be allowed to be achieve at the expense of procedural formalities.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:

1. The case of the respondent which is Makhan Chand was that, the police had not complied with Sub-section (5) of section 50 of the NDPS Act which states that the accused shall be informed that he has a right to be searched under the provisions of section 50 by a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer etc. This procedural protection looks at the legal and proper way of conducting a search.
2. Based on this, the respondent founded the search and seizure with reference to Section 50 as unlawful and ineffective. This is a statutory provision that was not adhered to and as such, the whole process was rendered ineffective with regard to the evidence that was obtained.
3. The respondent further stated that mechanisms under the NDPS Act are couched in protection of individual’s rights and the right to a fair trial. It was namely these written procedures that had not been followed during the trial, which affected the fairness of the trial and respondent’s rights.
4. The respondent referred to the previous cases in which the court discharged people on the same grounds stating that the Act does not compel one to adhere to statutory formalities.
5. The respondent stood in support of the decision by the High Court to acquit the respondent as the High Court got the manner of the application of the law right by admitting the procedural vices and the effect, if any, they may have had to the legal right of the search and seizure.

JUDGEMENT:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed a significant judgement in State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand on 27-02-2004. The case essentially dealt with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which lays down the procedure that is to be followed during searches and seizures.

Thus, applying substantiality to procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court underlined. The provision focuses on providing the person to be searched with information concerning the right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. This safeguard is important to prevent compromising of search processes and to protect the persons in relation of possible abuse of power by officers of law enforcement agencies.

This the Court noted is a mandatory provision of law and any non- compliance cannot be allowed be regarded as a technicality. Every violation of such procedures affects the fairness of the trial, and rights of the accused officer or anyone in the military. The Court reaffirmed the proposition that the rule of law and justice cannot be done if the statutory mandates are not complied to the letter. 

The case was again and again to the effect of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Supreme Court also affirmed the High Court’s order while acquitting Makhan Chand. Originally, the High Court had given the respondent a clean slate asserting that under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the police had not done their part. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment of procedural irregularities as serious enough to render the search and seizure process invalid and render the collected evidence inadmissible. 

 In the judgment of the case, the Supreme court relied on several other cases whereby the courts have set aside convictions because of denial of the procedural protections under the NDPS Act. This supported the judiciary in the fight against infringement of the procedural measures in the execution of search and seizure in connection with narcotics. 

 This judgment in State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand is a very pertinent case which carries a solemn message about compliance of legal formalities in the implementation of NDPS Act. Thus, by confirming the High Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court emphasized that the goals of justice are achieved only when the law is strictly adhered to, and the citizens’ rights are safeguarded in the course of legal proceedings. This decision remains relevant to the handling of narcotic cases and has prevented the elimination of procedural measures in the quest for convictions.

ANALYSIS:

In State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand (MANU/SC/0181/2004) the Supreme Court elucidated the non-negotiable procedural rigor under the NDPS Act especially Section 50 informing the person to be searched of his Right to be searched by a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The Court ruled that failure to observe this provision is not a violation in the technical sense of the word, as it goes to the very root of the issues that determines the fairness of the trial and the rights of the accused. Through affirming the High Court’s decision of acquitting Makhan Chand, the Supreme Court has stressed that the observation of procedural legal measures is crucial to preserving the credibility of the judiciary as well as the delivery of justice. Given that this decision, on the basis of such procedural irregularities, nullified convictions, and anti-police cases relying on similar attendant flaws of process, it is a reminder essential to law enforcers that they must follow statutory provisions seriously. The ruling also states that the preservation of individual freedoms as well as the rule of law is central, meaning that it interferes with how narcotic cases are processed, so as to avoid the circumventing of legal processes in the quest for convictions.

CONCLUSION:

The judgment in State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand also reminds a crucial legal lesson for the proper enforcement of the NDPS Act is procedural conformity which cannot be a process of convenience but by rigor. That for the Supreme Court the requirement to adhere strictly to Section 50 meant that the issue of procedural protection is deemed vital to the attainment of trial fairness and as a protection of the rights of the accused. This decision shows the readiness of the judiciary arm of government to protect legal principles as well as a judicial process hence the future conduct of the narcotic related cases will be patterned in a way that will not allow the side stepping of legal formalities.

REFERENCE

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1597257/ 

This Article is written by Syed Sumair Ahmed Shah student of Institute of Law (University of Sindh); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.