Section 50 NDPS safeguard requires clear individual notice; defective joint notice vitiated the search and conviction.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act requires a clear, individual and unambiguous communication of the right to be searched before the nearest Magistrate or gazetted officer. A joint notice to multiple accused was insufficient where one accused did not separately acknowledge the notice, and the safeguard was further diluted by offering search before a member of the raiding party, which is not contemplated by the statute. Because the search extended to the persons of both accused, Section 50 applied. The defective communication vitiated the search, and the conviction based on that search could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was valid when the accused were given a joint notice of the right to be searched before a Magistrate or gazetted officer and were also offered a third option of being searched before a member of the raiding party, and whether the recovery and conviction were thereby vitiated.

Analysis: Section 50 is a mandatory safeguard and the person to be searched must be clearly informed of the right to be searched before a nearest Magistrate or gazetted officer. The requirement is satisfied only by an individual, clear and unambiguous communication of that right. A joint notice to more than one accused does not adequately convey the statutory protection where one accused does not separately acknowledge the notice. The search in this case covered not only the bag carried by one accused but also the persons of both accused, so Section 50 applied. The offer of search before a Superintendent who was part of the raiding party introduced an option not contemplated by Section 50 and diluted the safeguard intended to secure an independent search.

Conclusion: The communication of the Section 50 right was defective, the search was vitiated, and the conviction based on that search could not stand.

---