Personal search under NDPS law and sealed sample custody upheld; minor weight variation did not defeat the prosecution case.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a personal search, so it does not govern recovery of charas from a bag carried by the accused. Even on the assumption that it applied, oral communication of the option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was sufficient, and substantial compliance was shown when the accused declined that option. A minor variation between the approximate sample weight taken at seizure and the chemical examiner's recorded weight did not undermine the prosecution where the seized articles were sealed throughout and the chain of custody remained intact. The High Court acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to a recovery of charas from the accused's bag and, in any event, whether the requirement of informing him of the option of search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate had been complied with; (ii) whether a difference between the approximate sample weight drawn at the spot and the weight recorded by the chemical examiner invalidated the prosecution case.

Issue (i): whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to a recovery of charas from the accused's bag and, in any event, whether the requirement of informing him of the option of search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate had been complied with

Analysis: Section 50 is attracted only where the search is of the person of the accused. Where the contraband is recovered from a bag carried by the accused, the recovery is not from his person and Section 50 does not apply. Even assuming the provision applied, the evidence showed that the accused was orally informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and he declined that option. Oral communication of that right is sufficient, and the requirement is one of substantial compliance, not literal formality.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 50 failed and did not justify acquittal.

Issue (ii): whether a difference between the approximate sample weight drawn at the spot and the weight recorded by the chemical examiner invalidated the prosecution case

Analysis: The samples were described as weighing about 50 grams, so a small variation was inherent. The evidence established that the seized articles were sealed, remained in sealed condition in the malkhana, were forwarded with the seal intact, and were received by the chemical examiner with the seal intact. The absence of a CFSL form and the slight difference in weight did not create a reasonable doubt where the chain of custody was proved and no tampering was suggested in cross-examination.

Conclusion: The discrepancy in weight did not vitiate the prosecution case or entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the trial court stood restored and the acquittal by the High Court was set aside, resulting in the reinstatement of the sentence and custody of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies to personal search and not to recovery from a bag carried by the accused, and a proved chain of custody with sealed samples is not defeated by a minor difference between the approximate sample weight at seizure and the weight found by the chemical examiner.

---