Customs search safeguards do not apply to suspicion-based interception; conviction upheld after concealed gold recovery.

Non-compliance with the customs search procedure did not vitiate the conviction where the accused was intercepted on suspicion and gold bars were recovered from a concealed plastic bag. The Court rejected the attempt to apply the safeguard under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the customs search, holding that even on that analogy the protection is attracted only when a search is conducted on prior information, not on suspicion. As the search was made on suspicion and the recovered contraband was found in the concealed bag, the asserted mandatory requirement was inapplicable and the conviction remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the search procedure under Section 102(1) of the Customs Act vitiated the conviction under Section 135(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The challenge rested on the argument that the customs search provision was analogous to Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and that the accused ought to have been informed of a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The Court rejected that analogy and held that, even assuming such similarity, the safeguard under Section 50 is attracted only where a search is conducted on prior information and not when the search is made on suspicion. The evidence showed that the accused was intercepted on suspicion, searched, and gold bars were recovered from a concealed plastic bag, so the asserted mandatory requirement was not applicable.

Conclusion: The conviction was not vitiated by the alleged non-compliance with the search requirement, and the challenge failed.

---