TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction under the NDPS Act was vitiated for alleged non-compliance with Section 50 where the accused was informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but declined that option and was searched by the raiding party.
Analysis: Section 50 requires strict compliance, but its mandate is to apprise the person of the right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if he so requires. The Court held that the notice communicated this right sufficiently, and the use of the word "can" did not invalidate the notice when read as a whole. The statute does not require that every search must be conducted before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate in all cases. Once the accused, after being informed, declined to exercise that right, the authorised officer was entitled to proceed with the search. The Court also held that the reliance on the later decision in Arif Khan did not assist the appellant on these facts, because that case turned on a failure to prove compliance, whereas here the accused was duly informed and declined the offer.
Conclusion: The search was not illegal for want of Section 50 compliance, and the conviction was not vitiated on that ground.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 50 of the NDPS Act is satisfied when the suspect is duly informed of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and a further search before such authority is not mandatory if the suspect declines that option.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
