Strict compliance with NDPS and Customs safeguards required for valid search, recovery, and custodial statements.

Mandatory procedural safeguards governing search, body screening, and custodial statements under the NDPS Act and Customs Act require strict compliance. A suspect must be clearly informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and mere notice of an option is insufficient. Where body search and recovery involve hospital examination and extraction of concealed articles, the required judicial authorisation must be obtained; permission for medical examination alone does not satisfy the statutory procedure. Statements recorded in custody under Section 67 are not voluntary if the person was not informed of the right to silence and the statements were obtained after the recovery process. Evidence obtained in breach of these safeguards cannot be treated as reliable proof of guilt.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the search and recovery complied with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; (ii) whether the body search and recovery complied with Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were voluntary and legally reliable.

Issue (i): whether the search and recovery complied with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The safeguard under Section 50 required the suspect to be apprised of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The notices served only conveyed an option and did not inform the respondents of their legal right. The interpreters also did not convey the meaning of the relevant expressions in the vernacular language. The requirement of strict compliance was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The search was not in compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the recovery could not be relied upon against the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether the body search and recovery complied with Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 103 required production before the Magistrate and, where necessary, appropriate judicial directions for screening, x-ray, and further action for removal of secreted goods. The record showed only permission for medical examination, not the further judicial authorization required for continued hospital detention and extraction of capsules. The prosecution did not prove compliance with the mandatory procedural steps.

Conclusion: The recovery during hospital admission was not in compliance with Section 103 of the Customs Act, 1962, and was not admissible as proof of unlawful possession.

Issue (iii): whether the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were voluntary and legally reliable.

Analysis: The respondents were in custody when the statements were recorded. They were not informed of the right to silence, and the statements were obtained after the recovery process. In such circumstances, the statements could not be treated as voluntary and, without independent corroboration, could not form the basis of adverse findings.

Conclusion: The statements under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not voluntary and were not fit for reliance.

Final Conclusion: The alleged recovery and the custodial statements suffered from legal infirmities, and no ground was made out to interfere with the acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory procedural safeguards governing search, body screening, and custodial statements under the NDPS and Customs laws require strict compliance, and evidence obtained in violation of those safeguards cannot be treated as reliable proof of guilt.

---