Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to personal search, not to a bag carried by the accused.

Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applies only to a personal search and not to the search of a bag, container, vehicle or premises. Where the recovery was from a bag carried by the accused, the procedural safeguard under Section 50 was inapplicable. The text also notes that official witnesses may be relied on where their evidence is credible, and the absence of support from one independent witness does not by itself discredit the prosecution when the record shows intact seals and no material contradiction. On that basis, the prosecution version was treated as sustainable and the contrary view was not.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the protection under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to the search of a bag carried by the accused. (ii) Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court could be sustained on the grounds of absence of independent witnesses and alleged absence of proof that the seals remained intact.

Issue (i): Whether the protection under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to the search of a bag carried by the accused.

Analysis: Section 50 is attracted only when a personal search of a person is undertaken. It does not extend to search of a bag, container, vehicle, or premises. The recovery in the present case was from a bag carried by the accused, and therefore the procedural safeguard in Section 50 was not applicable.

Conclusion: The finding of violation of Section 50 was unsustainable and was answered against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court could be sustained on the grounds of absence of independent witnesses and alleged absence of proof that the seals remained intact.

Analysis: The evidence of the official witnesses was found reliable, and there was no material to discredit it. The record also showed that the only independent witness examined did not support the prosecution, and there was evidence that the seals remained intact. The High Court's contrary conclusions were held to be unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored, against the accused.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the High Court erred in applying Section 50 to a bag search and in discarding the prosecution case on unsustainable grounds relating to witnesses and seals.

Ratio Decidendi: The safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies only to personal search and not to the search of a bag or other container carried by the accused.

---