Public place NDPS search falls under Section 43, and personal search satisfies Section 50 when the statutory right is clearly conveyed.

Section 42 of the NDPS Act does not apply to search and seizure in a public place; Section 43 governs seizures made on a public road or other place accessible to the public. Where the search extends to the accused's person, Section 50 is mandatory and the suspect must be informed of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate. Here, the appellant was intercepted in a public place, the search included his person, and he was clearly informed twice of his right and searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. The conviction was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to a search and seizure conducted in a public place. (ii) Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was attracted and, if so, whether its requirements were duly complied with when the search involved the appellant's person as well as the bag carried by him.

Issue (i): Whether Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to a search and seizure conducted in a public place.

Analysis: Section 42 governs entry, search, seizure and arrest in a building, conveyance or enclosed place, together with the recording and communication requirements attached to prior information. Section 43 applies where seizure and arrest are made in a public place. The appellant was intercepted on a public road in front of a club, a place accessible to the public and not a building, conveyance or enclosed place. The precedents dealing with private vehicles, hotel rooms, or enclosed places did not govern these facts.

Conclusion: Section 42 did not apply and the case fell within Section 43.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was attracted and, if so, whether its requirements were duly complied with when the search involved the appellant's person as well as the bag carried by him.

Analysis: Section 50 is mandatory when a person is searched and requires the suspect to be informed of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate. The search here extended beyond the bag to the appellant's person, as cash was recovered from his trouser pocket. The appellant was informed twice of his right and expressly chose to be searched before a gazetted officer. The additional option of searching the officer first did not vitiate the process because the core statutory right was clearly conveyed and the search of the appellant was conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer.

Conclusion: Section 50 was attracted, and there was strict compliance with its mandate.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld because the search was lawful under Section 43 and the personal search requirement under Section 50 was satisfied, leaving no merit in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a search is conducted in a public place, Section 43 governs and Section 42 does not apply; where the search extends to the person of the accused, Section 50 is mandatory, but it is satisfied if the accused is clearly informed of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate and the search is then conducted accordingly.

---