Search and seizure hitherto magistrate under section 50 of NDPS not requisite in all case: Delhi HC

search and seizures

What if you find an investigation officer has entered and searched through your house and at the time seizes the stuff without your prior permission. You wondered about the happening and feel that your rights have been violated. 

But there is a time which allows officer authorized by law to go through your property and have a look at the specific thing and seizes it under the rules governing by search and seizures. The seizes should be done on the illegal things like if the police officer has a probable cause that the evidence is present there for a crime which has been committed or he may have the reasonable beliefs about the commission of the crime.

It can be done only if the magistrate has issued the search warrant to search a particular place and seizes the specific items after reasonable cause about the commission of crime has been shown by the police officer to them. The condition to search a person about narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance is not necessary in all the cases is quoted in case of Ramesh Rana V. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Brief facts:

The appeal has been made on the behalf of the 3 appellant Dil Bahadur, Kirti Bahadur and Ramesh based on the judgment dated 25.02.2010 by the additional session court judge of P.S – Sirsiya. The three were arrested after investigation officer saw them holding the bag on their shoulder and they tried to escape after being noticed by the officer. The officer asks about searching their bags after denoting them the right to search before the magistrate on the reasonable cause about the commission of the crime. The officer at the same site took the written consent of the three about the searching of their personal property, and disclose the packets of Charas in huge quantity with the sample.

Key features:

  • The respondent was informed that they will search in front of the magistrate on the reasonable belief for the commission of the crime.
  • The bags of the suspect were searched by the investigation officer at the site of suspicion.
  • There is no public witness were produced by the police officer at the time of search investigation of the three.
  • It is immaterial that the narcotic drugs were disclosed as they are not searching and seizure in front of the magistrate.


The appeal of the accused was partly allowed as section 50 of Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance act protects the right of accused to be searched if required before the specified officer. It provides the option to accuse that to be searched before the officer searching or in front of gazette officer or near magistrate. The option to search in front of the magistrate was not given to the appellant as he signed the written consent to be searched by the officer searching.

Section 50 would not apply to the situation where the search is not of the person else something which he is carrying in his hand. The hazardous nature of substance for human health was found under the custody of the accused which does not exempt him from his liability. The appeal is allowed to lessen the punishment of accused as there was no other witness at the time of search and seize produces before the court.  

Edited by Vartika Gajendra Singh

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje


Mohita Yadav
I am Mohita Yadav pursuing BBA. LLB(Hons.) at The ICFAI university, Dehradun. I am dedicated law student who learn through analysing. My basic interest is in field of contract law and constitutional law as no law in land is above the constitution. I love to do research on facts behind religious myth. I believe in intellectual work greatly inspired by Chanakya. At my free time, I like to spent my knowledge as it helps me to memorize and also motivate others. Not the least but I give best of my skill as I know a man is great by his deeds.