Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. Applicability of Sec. 42(2): Sec. 42(2) of the NDPS Act applies only when the information relates to the availability of contraband in a building, conveyance, or enclosed place. It does not extend to cases where the information pertains to contraband in a public place (!) (!) .

2. Requirement of Recording and Sending Information: For Sec. 42(2) to be triggered, the information must be recorded in writing and a copy sent to the immediate official superior before proceeding with the search or seizure. In this case, there was no evidence that the information was recorded in writing and sent as required, thus Sec. 42(2) was not satisfied (!) (!) (!) .

3. Scope of Sec. 42(1) and Sec. 43: Sec. 42(1) deals with entry, search, and seizure in enclosed places based on specific information, while Sec. 43 pertains to searches in public places where no prior recording of information is required. The law clearly states that Sec. 42(2) is only relevant to Sec. 42(1) and not to Sec. 43 (!) (!) .

4. Non-application to Public Places: The law and judicial interpretation confirm that Sec. 42(2) does not apply to searches or seizures in public places, only to those in buildings, conveyances, or enclosed spaces where prior written information is obtained and sent to a superior officer (!) (!) .

5. Compliance with Sec. 50: The section mandates that a person to be searched must be informed of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and this right must be effectively communicated. The evidence showed that the accused was given this opportunity, and there was no prejudice caused due to non-specific verbal or written notification (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. Voluntary Surrender and Search: When the accused voluntarily surrendered the contraband, and the officers ensured that the accused was aware of his rights, the procedural requirements were met, and no violation of Sec. 50 was established (!) (!) .

7. Overall Court Finding: The court concluded that the procedural requirements under Sec. 42(2) and Sec. 50 were not violated in a manner that would invalidate the proceedings. The evidence supported the seizure and recovery of the contraband, and the conviction was justified. The appeal was dismissed as without merit (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the key legal principles emphasize that Sec. 42(2) is limited to cases involving enclosed spaces and requires prior written recording and reporting, which was not established here. Additionally, the procedural safeguards under Sec. 50 were adequately observed, and the procedural lapses did not impact the legality of the seizure or the conviction.