Search vitiated by lack of independence of the Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

On December 4, 2004, Excise officials (S.I. R.K. Praharaj) intercepted the Appellant as he alighted from a bus in Chandanpur following a tip-off.

The S.I. offered the Appellant the option to be searched before an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, specifically pointing to the Inspector of Excise (P.W.1) who was already part of the raiding party.

The search yielded 15.200 kg of ganja.

The Trial Court (Special Judge, Puri) convicted the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act, sentencing him to five years R.I. and a fine of ₹30,000.

The Appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of non-compliance with statutory safeguards during the search.

The Court primarily applied Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (N.D.P.S.) Act, 1985, which mandates that an accused be apprised of their legal right to be searched before an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer to ensure transparency.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh [2026 INSC 240] and State of Rajasthan v. Paramanand & Anr., which establish that providing a "third option" (search by a member of the raiding party) frustrates the object of Section 50.

The Court followed Rukmini Pradhan v. State of Orissa [CRLA No. 104 of 2003], holding that a Gazetted Officer associated with the raiding party cannot be treated as an "independent" officer under the Act.

The Court scrutinized the testimony of P.W.1 (Inspector of Excise), who admitted that the S.I. offered the accused the option to be searched in his presence while he was already part of the patrolling/raiding team.

The Court reasoned that the statutory intent of Section 50 is to protect the accused from false implication by providing an independent and impartial authority.

By presenting the Inspector (P.W.1) as the Gazetted Officer for the search, the investigating agency effectively bypassed the requirement for an independent witness.

The Court found that such participation by a raiding party member destroys the element of independence required by law, rendering the "compliance" illusory.

The Court concluded that mandatory procedural safeguards were breached, vitiating the entire search and seizure operation.

The Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated February 26, 2007, and the Appellant was acquitted of all charges with his bail bonds discharged.