AJIM KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Here is yet another case under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which meets its Waterloo on account of non-compliance of section 50 of the Act.

(2.) Let me first provide a thumb nail description of the case as set up by the State. We are told that on October 7, 1990 on receipt of secret information that the appellant was having opium in his possession and was standing at the bus stand Vikas Kunj. Outer Ring Road, a raiding party was formed, the appellant was nabbed and subsequent to his refusal to get himself searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, one kilogram opium was recovered from his possession.

(3.) As we all know by now, Section 50 of the Act requires that the person to be searched has to be informed whether he would like to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Though the Counsel for the appellant insists that his option must necessarily be given in writing. I do not agree. However, the question still remains: Can it be said, on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, that the mandatory requirements of section 50 were followed ? I feel, the answer must be that they were not. Let me show why.