Section 50 NDPS Act applies only to personal search, not to a bag search; contrary observations were not binding.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to the personal search of an accused and not to the search of a bag, baggage, article, or container carried by him. Relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, the Court reaffirmed that position and treated earlier observations in Namdi Francis Nwazor as obiter dicta because they were not necessary to the decision in that case. The Court reiterated that a judgment is binding only for what it actually decides. On that basis, Section 50 was held inapplicable to the bag search, the contrary view was not binding, and the conviction could not be reversed on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was attracted to the search of a bag carried by the accused and whether the earlier observation treating such a search as covered by Section 50 constituted binding law.

Analysis: Section 50 applies only to the personal search of an and not to the search of baggage, article, or container carried by him. The larger Bench ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar was relied upon to reaffirm that position. The earlier observations in Namdi Francis Nwazor were held to be unnecessary to the decision in that case, as the baggage there had already been checked in and the search was not of the person of the accused. Such observations were therefore treated as obiter dicta and not as ratio decidendi. The Court also reiterated that a decision is authority only for what it actually decides.

Conclusion: Section 50 was not applicable to the search of the bag, the contrary view was not binding, and the conviction could not be reversed on that ground.

---