NDPS safeguards apply to Armed Forces personnel and Section 50 is limited to personal searches, not house searches.

Members of the Armed Forces prosecuted for a civil offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 remain entitled to the statute's mandatory safeguards; Article 33 and the Army Act, 1950 do not authorise selective disregard of search-and-seizure requirements, and non-compliance is fatal to the prosecution. Section 50 is confined to the search of a person and does not extend to a search of a private residence or other premises. On the facts, the recovery was from a residence, so Section 50 did not apply, but the prosecution still failed because the mandatory NDPS safeguards were not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether members of the Armed Forces, when tried for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are nevertheless entitled to the statutory safeguards under that Act notwithstanding Article 33 of the Constitution of India and the Army Act, 1950; (ii) whether the safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies to a search of a private residence rather than a search of the person.

Issue (i): Whether members of the Armed Forces, when tried for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, are nevertheless entitled to the statutory safeguards under that Act notwithstanding Article 33 of the Constitution of India and the Army Act, 1950.

Analysis: Article 33 permits Parliament to restrict or abridge fundamental rights of armed forces personnel only to the extent necessary for discipline and proper discharge of duties. It does not place them outside the Constitution or deprive them of all statutory protection. Where a person subject to the Army Act is tried for a civil offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the prosecution must still comply with the safeguards enacted in that statute. The Act operates in its entirety and cannot be applied selectively to ignore mandatory requirements of search and seizure merely because the accused belongs to the Armed Forces. Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements governing search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is fatal to the prosecution.

Conclusion: The statutory safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 remained applicable to the respondent, and the contention based on Armed Forces status was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies to a search of a private residence rather than a search of the person.

Analysis: Section 50 is confined, by its language, to the search of a person. A search of a house or other premises does not attract that provision. The facts showed recovery from a private residence, not from a personal search, so Section 50 had no application on those facts.

Conclusion: Section 50 was held inapplicable to the search conducted in the present case.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the search and seizure did not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the conviction could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: When a person subject to the Army Act is prosecuted for a civil offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the mandatory safeguards of that Act apply in full, and their non-compliance vitiates the prosecution; Section 50 is limited to the search of a person and does not govern search of premises.

---