Section 50 of the NDPS Act is limited to personal search; recovery from bags and suitcases does not attract its protection.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to personal search and not to search of bags or suitcases, so the protection was unavailable where contraband was recovered from a suitcase and bag. The plea of non-compliance with Section 42(2) was rejected because the record showed that the required information had been reduced to writing and transmitted to a superior officer. Compliance with Sections 55 and 57 was also upheld on the evidence, as the seized articles were kept in safe custody, sent for chemical examination, and the seizure and arrest were reported. The sentence was not reduced, as the quantity recovered was substantial and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether there was non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (ii) Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to the search of bags and suitcases. (iii) Whether there was non-compliance with Sections 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (iv) Whether the sentence required alteration to the period already undergone.

Issue (i): Whether there was non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section 42 requires information taken down in writing and prompt transmission of a copy to the immediate superior when the officer acts on prior information concerning contraband kept or concealed in a building, conveyance, or enclosed place. The record was examined by the trial court and the High Court, and both found that the requisite documents had been sent to the superior officer. The contention of total non-compliance was not accepted on the evidence.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of Section 42(2) was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to the search of bags and suitcases.

Analysis: Section 50 is confined to personal search. It does not extend to search of bags, containers, vehicles, or premises. Since the contraband was recovered from the appellants' suitcase and bag, the search was not a search of person and the protection under Section 50 was unavailable.

Conclusion: Section 50 had no application to the search in question and the challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether there was non-compliance with Sections 55 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The seized articles were kept in safe custody in the malkhana and were sent for chemical examination in accordance with the required procedure. The evidence also showed that the arrest and seizure were reported to the immediate superior officer. No infirmity was found in the findings of the courts below on these aspects.

Conclusion: Compliance with Sections 55 and 57 was upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the sentence required alteration to the period already undergone.

Analysis: The quantity of ganja recovered was substantial and the offence was treated as grave. The period of custody already undergone did not justify interference with the sentence.

Conclusion: The request for reduction of sentence was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and no ground for interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies only to personal search and not to search of bags, suitcases, containers, vehicles, or premises; compliance under Sections 42, 55, and 57 depends on the facts and evidence in each case.

---