NDPS search safeguards and reporting requirements must be strictly proved; weak police-only evidence led to acquittal.

Mandatory compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act requires a real and effective communication of the accused's right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; a bare recital in the recovery memo was insufficient. The record also lacked dependable documentary proof that the arrest and seizure were reported to superior officers within the prescribed time under Section 57, and oral assertions by police witnesses did not cure that defect. The search and seizure version was further weakened by the absence of any independent public witness and unexplained inconsistencies on why none was joined. On these facts, the conviction could not be sustained and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act could be sustained despite non-compliance with the requirement of informing the accused of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, absence of reliable proof of reporting the arrest and seizure to superior officers within the prescribed time, and the recovery being supported only by police witnesses.

Analysis: The requirement relating to search of a person under Section 50 is mandatory, and mere recital in the recovery memo that the accused was asked whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was held insufficient to establish real compliance. The record also did not contain dependable documentary proof of the report of arrest and seizure having been sent to superior officers as contemplated by Section 57, and the oral assertions of the police witnesses were found inadequate. The absence of any independent public witness, coupled with inconsistencies regarding why no such witness was joined, further weakened the credibility of the search and seizure version and created reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---