Mandatory search safeguard under NDPS law requires clear notice of the right before any search choice is made.

Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act is a mandatory safeguard and requires strict compliance: the empowered officer must inform the suspect of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. A mere inquiry asking whether the suspect prefers that option does not satisfy the statutory mandate, because the choice can be meaningful only after the right is first communicated. The later insertion of sub-sections (5) and (6) does not remove this obligation, and the earlier view treating bare inquiry as sufficient is inconsistent with the Constitution Bench ruling in Baldev Singh.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the empowered officer is required to inform the suspect of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, or whether a mere inquiry as to choice amounts to compliance.

Analysis: Section 50 confers a valuable safeguard intended to prevent misuse of the power of search and to protect against false implication. The expression "if the person to be searched so requires" presupposes that the suspect must first be made aware of the existence of the right; only then can any choice be exercised meaningfully. The mandate is not satisfied by a bare inquiry asking whether the suspect wishes to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The later insertion of sub-sections (5) and (6) did not remove the obligation under sub-section (1), and the earlier view treating mere inquiry as sufficient was held inconsistent with the Constitution Bench ruling in Baldev Singh.

Conclusion: The obligation under Section 50(1) is mandatory and requires strict compliance; the suspect must be informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and mere asking of a question is not enough.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory search safeguard that confers a personal right must be expressly communicated to the suspect, and compliance is valid only when the suspect is made aware of the existence of that right before any election can be made.

---