Substantial compliance with prior-search rights and credible official testimony sustained the conviction despite hostile independent witnesses.

Substantial compliance with the right of prior search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was sufficient where the consent memo and surrounding records showed that the accused was clearly offered search before the prescribed authority, and the safeguard was treated as duly explained. The conviction was also sustained because the official witnesses gave consistent and unimpeached evidence, while the independent witness resiled without satisfactory explanation and the defence witness was not reliable. The Court accepted that police testimony is not to be discarded merely because it is official, and held that the prosecution version proved the case despite non-support from independent witnesses. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the accused was duly informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (ii) whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of official witnesses despite the hostile or non-supportive stance of the independent witnesses.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was duly informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The consent memo reflected that the accused was offered search before a Judge, a Gazetted Officer, or the Investigating Officer. The reference to a Judge was treated as conveying the equivalent of a Magistrate, and the surrounding documents, including the accused's reply, supported the conclusion that the option was explained to him in substance. The Court held that the statutory safeguard is satisfied when the accused is reasonably apprised of the right to elect search before the specified authority.

Conclusion: The requirement of Section 15 was held to be complied with, against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of official witnesses despite the hostile or non-supportive stance of the independent witnesses.

Analysis: The Court found that the independent witness had admitted his signatures on the relevant documents but later resiled without a satisfactory explanation, and the other witness produced by the defence also did not inspire confidence. The evidence of the official witnesses was found consistent and unimpeached in cross-examination. Relying on the settled principle that police testimony is not to be discarded merely because it is official, and that non-examination of every witness is not fatal where the material evidence is available, the Court accepted the prosecution version.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld on the basis of the official witnesses' evidence, against the accused.

Final Conclusion: No infirmity was found in the conviction and sentence, and the appeal was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantial compliance with the accused's right of prior search is sufficient where the record shows a clear offer of search before the prescribed authority, and a conviction may rest on credible official testimony even if independent witnesses do not support the prosecution.

---