Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by special leave have been filed against the direction of the High Court to proceed against the appellant-applicants under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 after recording an order of acquittal on the ground that there has been an infraction of Section 42 and Section 50 of the said Act.
3. Section 58 of the said Act reads thus:
“58. Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest.—(1) Any person empowered under Section 42 or Section 43 or Section 44 who—
(a) without reasonable ground of suspicion enters or searches, or causes to be entered or searched, any building, conveyance or place;
(b) vexatiously and unnecessarily seizes the property of any person on the pretence of seizing or searching for any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or other article liable to be confiscated under this Act, or of seizing any document or other article liable to be seized under Section 42, Section 43 or Section 44; or
(c) vexatiously and unnecessarily detains, searches or arrests any person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Any person wilfully and maliciously giving false information and so causing an arrest or a search being made under this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.”
4. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would indicate that recourse can be taken to the said provision only when the court comes to the conclusion that the entry, search, seizure or arrest was either vexatious or unnecessary as is apparent from sub-section (1)(b) of Section 58.
5. From the mere fact that there has been an infraction of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act, the Court cannot jump to the conclusion that the arrest or seizure in question was either vexatious or unnecessary. In that view of the matter, the impugned direction of the High Court must be held to be without jurisdiction as the condition precedent for application of Section 58 has been found to be lacking. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned direction and allow these appeals accordingly.