"Proceedings Quashed Due to Non-Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act: Search Must Be Conducted Before Independent Gazetted Officer"

the Bench has held that ‘we have no hesitation in holding that in so far as the obligation of the authorized officer under sub- section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires strict compliance. In fact the contention raised by the appellant has, in specific terms, been rejected by the Constitution Bench in clause 7 of para 23 of the judgment. The Court clearly held that an illicit article seized from the person of an accused during search conducted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 50 of the Act cannot be used as evidence of proof of unlawful possession of the contraband on the accused, though any other material recovered during that search may be relied upon by the prosecution in other proceedings, against the accused, notwithstanding the recovery of that material during an illegal search. The proposition of law having been so clearly stated, we are afraid that no argument to the contrary may be entertained. What needs to be understood is that an illegal recovery cannot take the colour of a lawful possession even on the basis of oral evidence. But if any other material which is recovered is a subject matter in some colateral or independent proceeding, the same could be proved in accordance with law even with the aid of such recovery. But in no event the illegal recovery can be the foundation of a successful conviction under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.”