( 1 ) CONSIDERED the case diary.

( 2 ) SHRI Bhojwani argued that in the present matter there is no compliance of provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act, because in the present raid, the raiding party had taken a gazetted officer - Mr. Negi who happens to be officer of the same department. It is his argument that taking such officer with the raiding party and thereafter saying that the accused were searched before a gazetted officer will not be in any way the compliance of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He placed reliance on the judgement of Orissa High Court in this context in the matter of Bijaya Kumar Subidhi v. State of Orissa, reported in (1995) 2 Crimes 724. He argued that in view of non-compliance of provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the applicants accused would be acquitted and, therefore, accused need to be released on bail in view of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He further pointed that there has been no compliance of Section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. ( 3 ) SHRI A. H. Khan, counsel for C. B. N. Neemuch pointed by referring to the case diary that there has been due compliance of provisions of Section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He submitted that the applicants were searched before a gazetted officer, and therefore, there has been compliance of provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act reads :-"conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted - (1) Then any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, and Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-Section (1), (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made, (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. "

( 4 ) THE words "take such person" used in sub-Section (1) are very important. So also words "the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate before whom any such person is brought" used in sub-Section (3) are important. The words "take and brought" used invariably indicate that the person apprehended by raiding party has to be taken before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and if such person is "brought" before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and if there is no ground for search, such persons be discharged forthwith. If there are reasons for taking search, such Magistrate or Gazetted Officer should direct such search in his presence. Therefore, the legislature has taken special care to see that search of such accused should be taken before and independent person who happens to be a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer so as to see that the accused should get all necessary protection offered by the law. Taking a person with the raiding party makes such person impliedly interested in success of the raid. At least, he cannot be said to be totally independent of the work done by the raiding party in the said raid. Provisions of Section 50 have been declared to be mandatory by the Supreme Court and in the matter of Balbirsingh v. State of Punjab, (1994) JT 427 : (1994 Cri LJ 1206), Supreme Court has made it very clear that being searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer is an important right which is available to a person who has been apprehended as an accused of an offenc