NDPS search safeguards: Section 50 is limited to personal search, while written reporting and safe custody satisfied compliance.

Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a personal search and not to search of baggage or a suitcase, so recovery from a suitcase did not attract that protection. Section 42(2) was held satisfied where prior information was reduced to writing and forwarded to the superior officer, with the officer's evidence supported by the written record. No breach of Section 55 was established on the allegation of delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis, as the seized articles were shown to have remained in safe custody and no prejudice was demonstrated. The conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the search of the suitcase and seizure of contraband attracted the protection of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (ii) Whether there was compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (iii) Whether delay in sending the seized sample for chemical examination amounted to non-compliance with Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the search of the suitcase and seizure of contraband attracted the protection of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section 50 applies only to a personal search. It does not extend to search of a vehicle, container, bag, or premises. The contraband in the present case was suspected to be concealed in the accused's suitcase and was recovered from the suitcase after screening, not from his physical person. The search therefore could not be treated as a personal search within the meaning of Section 50.

Conclusion: Section 50 was not applicable, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether there was compliance with Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the information was reduced to writing and placed before the superior officer, who endorsed it and directed action. The officer's statement on compliance remained unshaken in cross-examination, and the written note of information supported that version. The statutory requirement of forwarding the information to the immediate superior was therefore satisfied.

Conclusion: Section 42(2) was complied with, and the objection failed.

Issue (iii): Whether delay in sending the seized sample for chemical examination amounted to non-compliance with Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Analysis: The plea had not been raised before the courts below. In any event, the investigating officer's evidence that the seized articles were kept in safe custody was not challenged or shaken. On the record, no prejudice or infirmity was shown from the dispatch of the sample on 23-9-1993.

Conclusion: No violation of Section 55 was established, and the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is confined to personal search and does not apply to search of baggage or containers, while compliance with Sections 42(2) and 55 is satisfied where prior written information is duly forwarded to the superior officer and the seizure remains in safe custody without demonstrated prejudice.

---