Offering a third option for personal search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial.

On January 30, 2010, a police patrolling party headed by PW-9 ASI Satpal Sharma intercepted the respondent on National Highway-21 at Jhalogi based on suspicious behavior

The police alleged that after obtaining the respondent’s consent under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a personal search was conducted, resulting in the recovery of 450 grams of cannabis (charas) concealed below his knees

While the police claimed the area was secluded, evidence suggested the presence of nearby offices and a bazaar

The Trial Court (Special Judge, Mandi) acquitted the respondent on April 8, 2015, citing doubts about the prosecution's narrative

The State subsequently appealed this acquittal to the High Court.

1. Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the search of a person.

2. Whether the contradictions in the testimonies of the official witnesses and the failure to join independent witnesses created a reasonable doubt regarding the respondent's guilt.

The court primarily applied Section 20 and Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Section 50 mandates that an officer must inform the suspect of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate

The court relied heavily on the precedent Ranjan Kumar Chaddha v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC 5164), which clarifies that the suspect must be given only two clear options (Magistrate or Gazetted Officer) and that any "third option"—such as consent to be searched by the Investigating Officer—vitiates the search

The court also reaffirmed the principle that while official testimony can sustain a conviction, serious discrepancies in such testimony in the absence of independent witnesses entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt

The court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed due to procedural and evidentiary inconsistencies.

Firstly, regarding Section 50, the court noted that the consent memo offered the respondent a "third option" to be searched by the Investigating Officer, which is a violation of the strict statutory mandate as interpreted in Ranjan Kumar Chaddha

Secondly, the court highlighted significant contradictions between the two primary official witnesses (PW-2 and PW-9) regarding the timing of the police party's departure and the sequence of the search

Thirdly, despite the search occurring on a busy National Highway near a bazaar and a government camp, the police failed to associate any independent witnesses, undermining the credibility of the "secluded spot" claim

These cumulative failures rendered the recovered contraband inadmissible and the prosecution's story unreliable

The court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal and dismissed the State's appeal

It was concluded that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as the "quality" of the evidence presented did not meet the required legal standard