TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 28, 29 and 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short). 3. The learned counsel mainly argued on the point of compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is argued that the search was conducted by an officer who was part of the Investigating Party and therefore, such officer cannot be called as an 'independent officer'. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja .. vs .. State of Gujrat, reported in (2011)6 SCC 609 has held that the obligation under sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory and requires strict compliance. It is further held that failure to comply the provision would render the recovery....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication at page 35 of the record book shows that the Investigation Officer Shri K. Kiran Babu was the Officer was authorized to constitute a team and to take necessary action as per law, on receiving an information that the applicant was to deliver substantial quantity of Cocaine to an unknown person. 8. Furthermore, the panchnama shows that before commencing applicant's person search Shri K. Kiran Babu, Investigating Officer informed verbally and also in writing that under Section 50 of the NDPS Act they have a right to be searched in presence of a nearest Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Thereupon, he discloses verbally as also in writing that he would prefer to be searched before any Gazetted Officer. 9. It is further clear fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thus, prima facie, it cannot be urged that the said notice was given to the applicant and, consequently, he was apprised of his right under Section 50 of the Act, in the presence of the panch witnesses. In ordinary course, had the notice been given during the currency of the panchanama, the panch witnesses ought to have signed the said notice. A useful reference in this context can be made to an order passed by this Court in the case of Nadeem Abdul Rahim Choughule V/s. The State of Maharashtra10, wherein repelling the contention of compliance of Section 50 based on such communication (of which there was no reference in the panchanama), it was observed that the said attempt appeared to be an after-thought as the communication did not bear ....