Section 50 NDPS applies only to personal search, while a voluntary Section 108 statement may be relied on when corroborated.

Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies only to personal search and not to baggage search; where contraband is recovered from a bag carried by the accused, the requirement to inform him of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate does not arise. A Chemical Analyser's report was not discredited merely for lack of detailed testing methodology because the recovery was supported by officer testing and the accused's own admission. A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was accepted as voluntary and reliable, as the claim of coercion and inability to understand English was not substantiated and the statement was corroborated by surrounding evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement of informing the accused of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to search of baggage; (ii) whether the Chemical Analyser's report could be disbelieved for want of detail; (iii) whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was voluntary and reliable.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement of informing the accused of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applied to search of baggage.

Analysis: The statutory safeguard under Section 50 is attracted when the person of the accused is searched. A search of baggage or other article carried by the accused is distinct from a personal search. Since the contraband was recovered from the appellant's bag and not from his body, the requirement of offering search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate did not arise.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and Section 50 was held inapplicable to the baggage search.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chemical Analyser's report could be disbelieved for want of detail.

Analysis: The report was not treated as the sole basis of guilt. The substance had also been tested by the officers and the appellant had admitted in his statement that the substance was heroin. In that background, the absence of a detailed test description in the report did not undermine the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The Chemical Analyser's report was held not to invalidate the recovery or the conviction.

Issue (iii): Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was voluntary and reliable.

Analysis: The appellant's claim of coercion and inability to understand English was not accepted. His conduct and surrounding evidence showed that he could make and understand English entries, and the retraction came much later. The statement was therefore treated as voluntary and admissible, supported by other evidence on record.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 was held to be voluntary and capable of reliance.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained on the basis of lawful recovery, corroborative evidence, and the reliable statement under Section 108, and no ground for interference was found.

Ratio Decidendi: The procedural safeguard requiring notice of the right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate applies only to personal search under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and not to search of baggage; a voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 may be relied upon if corroborated by the surrounding evidence.

---