In Brief
A man was arrested with 2.5 kg of charas (hashish) after police received an informant tip. Although police claimed to have informed the accused of his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, he consented to be searched by the raiding party instead. He was convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act—which mandates that searches must occur in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer—is mandatory, not merely advisory. The accused's written consent to waive this protection did not cure the procedural violation. Since the prosecution failed to prove compliance with Section 50, the appellant was acquitted.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.