NDPS search compliance under Section 50(1) failed where the accused was not clearly informed of the right before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act requires the person searched to be clearly informed of the right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; a vague reference or mere enquiry is not enough. The prosecution evidence did not establish proper communication of that right, and witness inconsistencies also created doubt about the manner of recovery. As the conviction depended solely on recovery of ganja from the accused's person, the non-compliance was held to go to the root of the prosecution case. The search was found unlawful, and the conviction and sentence were set aside, resulting in acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search and seizure from the accused complied with Section 50(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and whether non-compliance vitiated the conviction based solely on recovery from the person searched.

Analysis: Section 50(1) requires an empowered officer, before searching a person, to inform him of his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The right is not satisfied by a mere enquiry or by a vague reference to the presence of a gazetted officer. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not establish clear communication of this right to the accused. The version of one witness also introduced inconsistencies as to whether the accused themselves produced the packets or whether the packets were recovered on search, and the Court found no substantial compliance permissible under the section. Since the conviction rested only on possession of the recovered ganja, the breach went to the root of the conviction.

Conclusion: The search was held to be in breach of Section 50(1) and the conviction and sentence were set aside; the appellant was acquitted.

---