Joint Notice Under Section 50 NDPS Vitiates Search; Each Accused Must Be Informed Individually, Supreme Court Holds

On information that the respondents would hand over about 10 kg of opium near Iklera, a narcotics raiding party intercepted them in October 1997 (para 2). They were told they could be searched before a Magistrate, a gazetted officer or Superintendent J.S. Negi of the raiding party, and one joint written notice was given; respondent No. 2 signed consent for both (paras 2, 7). Nothing was found on their persons, but 9.6 kg of opium was recovered from the bag carried by respondent No. 1 (paras 2, 7). The Special Judge convicted them with ten years' rigorous imprisonment each; the Rajasthan High Court acquitted them (paras 3-4).

The conviction rested solely on the opium in the bag (para 9). Relying on Dilip and Shah Alam, the Court held that if merely a bag is searched Section 50 does not apply, but if the person is also searched it does; here both the bag and the persons were searched (paras 10-12). The right under Section 50(1) may be communicated orally, but it must be individual: "The communication of this right has to be clear, unambiguous and individual" (paras 13-14). A joint notice signed by one accused for both frustrates the provision, and the similar views of the Punjab and Haryana and Bombay High Courts were approved (para 14). Offering a third option of search before the Superintendent, who was part of the raiding party and not an independent officer, was also a breach (para 15). The search was vitiated, and the High Court's view was not perverse (para 15).