Section 50 safeguard in search cases depends on facts, with reliable proof of informed waiver central to judicial review.

Section 50 confers a valuable safeguard requiring an accused to be informed of the right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Compliance is not assessed mechanically; it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Contemporaneous written proof that the accused was informed of the right and waived it is relevant evidence, and the court will examine whether the safeguard was actually communicated and voluntarily waived. Where reliable evidence of such communication is absent, that factor may support non-interference with the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to inform the accused of the right under Section 50 to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer vitiated the search and justified interference with the acquittal.

Analysis: Section 50 confers a valuable statutory safeguard on the accused, and the search officer should ordinarily inform the suspect of that right. The effect of non-compliance is not to be assessed mechanically; the issue depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. A contemporaneous writing recording that the accused was informed of the right and waived it is relevant evidence, and the Court will examine whether the safeguard was in fact communicated and waived. In the present case, there was no writing from the accused showing that he had been informed of the right and had waived it, and the long delay also weighed against disturbing the acquittal.

Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Section 50 is to be judged on the facts of each case, and absence of reliable evidence that the accused was informed of and waived the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer may justify non-interference with an acquittal.

---