The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not permit the Investigating Officer or any other officer, including the Gazetted Officer before whom the personal search is to be conducted, to give an accused a fresh or third option after the accused has already exercised his statutory choice.

The Court observed that the provision recognises only the options of being searched before the nearest Magistrate or the nearest Gazetted Officer.

Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “the Statute does not recognize the giving of “third alternative or fresh option by the same authorized -empowered person [Investigating Officer] and/or by any other officer or by the Gazetted Officer before whom personal search is to be conducted.”

Background:

The case arose from the alleged recovery of 350 grams of charas from the sports shoes of Ram Lal during police patrolling at Village 16 Miles, Kullu, on February 23, 2013. The police claimed that after informing him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, he opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. He was taken to the Manali police station, where a fresh option was allegedly given before the search.

Ram Lal was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, but the Special Judge-II, Kullu, acquitted him on March 9, 2015. The State challenged the acquittal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The Court held that after Ram Lal had already opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer, the SDPO could not give him a second or fresh option. The Court held that Section 50 recognises only the two statutory options of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

The Court noted that a Gazetted Officer was available at Patlikuhal, around 4–5 km from the spot, but the accused was taken to Manali, around 12 km away. No efforts were made to contact the officer at Patlikuhal.

The Court also found that independent witnesses were not associated, key police witnesses were not examined, and the photographs of the alleged recovery contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the place and time of recovery.

Thus, the High dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the trial court's findings.

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ram Lal

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.409 of 2015

Date of Decision: 23.07.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order