Search Of Female’s Purse, Baggage, Or Containers Not "Personal Search" U/S 50 NDPS Act: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court held that the recovery in the present case was effected at a public place and therefore fell within the scope of Section 43 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the procedural requirements applicable to searches under Section 42 were not attracted. The Court also observed that Section 50 of the Act applies only to personal searches and not to the search of bags, containers, or vehicles.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed, “…the purse carried by the female accused was taken from her possession and opened for the purpose of search, and the contraband bottles were recovered from the said purse. Such search of a purse or bag does not involve touching or searching the body of the accused and therefore cannot be construed as a personal search so as to attract the mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the provisions of Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act were violated, on the ground that the purse of the female accused was searched without complying with the said provision, is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit”.

Noting judicial pronouncement by the Supreme Court on the subject matter, the Bench further noted, “…the search of a bag, briefcase, purse or any other container carried by an accused cannot be equated with a personal search of the accused. Such articles are separate and independent from the human body and merely because they are carried by a person would not bring them within the ambit of the expression “person” used in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The legislative safeguard contemplated under Section 50 is intended to protect the dignity and privacy of an individual in cases where the search involves the body of the accused, and the said protection does not extend to the search of baggage, containers or other articles which can easily be detached from the person carrying them”.

Advocate Akash Singh appeared for the appellant and Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate.

The appeals arose from a judgment dated January 30, 2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Bilaspur, which convicted the accused and sentenced each of them to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1.5 lakh.

According to the prosecution, on September 13, 2023, police received secret information that a woman and three others were selling intoxicating cough syrup near a cultural stage at Shobha Vihar in Bilaspur. Acting on the tip-off, a police team reached the spot and intercepted the accused. During the search, officers allegedly recovered 145 bottles of “KOP Free” cough syrup and 30 bottles of “Maxcoff” cough syrup containing codeine from bags and sacks carried by them.

Subsequent to which, after investigation, the trial court held that the accused were in conscious possession of commercial quantity of narcotic substance and convicted them under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.

Before the Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution case was doubtful because independent witnesses had not supported the recovery and there were procedural lapses in sampling, forwarding of samples, and compliance with mandatory provisions such as Sections 42, 50, 52A, and 55 of the NDPS Act.

They also contended that delay in sending the samples to the forensic laboratory and routing them through another authority vitiated the prosecution case.

On the issue of delay in forwarding samples to the FSL, the Bench held that such delay does not automatically invalidate the prosecution case if the prosecution establishes that the seized contraband remained in safe custody and the link evidence remained intact.

After examining the evidence on record, including the testimony of the investigating officer and the forensic reports confirming the presence of codeine in the cough syrup samples, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court, accordingly, affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and dismissed all three criminal appeals. The Court also directed that the appellants, who are currently in custody, shall continue to serve the remaining part of their sentence.

Cause Title: Sneha Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh [Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:11759-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Akash Singh and Swapnil Keshari, Advocates.

Respondent: Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment