Section 50 NDPS Notice Needs No Set Form, Only Awareness of the Choice: Supreme Court

On 3.11.1998 a police officer received information that two persons carrying opium were travelling on a scooter (para 2). They were stopped and given notices that, if they so desired, they could be taken to a Magistrate or a gazetted officer for search; they opted to be searched by him, and 200 grams of opium was found on each (para 2). Although two panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, the trial court found full compliance with Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 and convicted them under Section 18 of the NDPS Act: ten years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000 (paras 1, 3). The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction (para 1).

Relying on Baldev Singh, the appellants contended that merely asking whether they wished to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate did not inform them of their right (para 4). Having set out Baldev Singh's conclusions (para 6), the Court held that no specific form is prescribed for the Section 50 information: the suspect must be made aware of his right, and the Court "has to see the substance and not the form of intimation" (para 7). Section 50 involves no self-incrimination; its object is fair play and transparency in the search, as Raghbir Singh explained (para 8). The notice asked whether each would let the officer search him or be searched by a gazetted officer or magistrate, and each replied in writing that he had no objection to the officer's search (para 9). That offer was "almost a replica" of the one upheld in Joseph Fernandez (para 10). The suspect must be told in a way that he becomes aware "that the choice is his and not of the concerned officer" (para 11). The Section 57 plea had no supporting material (para 14), and under Section 313 the accused did not claim ignorance of his rights (para 15).