Crl. Misc. No. M-32217 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-32217 of 2011 Date of Decision : October 21, 2011 Surinder Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Surinder Kumar accused has filed the instant petition for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.5 dated 19.01.2011, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short – the Act), registered at Police Station Giddarbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, three kilograms of opium was recovered from the bag, which the petitioner was carrying. The quantity of opium allegedly recovered from the petitioner is commercial one, and Crl. Misc. No. M-32217 of 2011 2 therefore, in view of Section 37 of the Act, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Counsel for the petitioner contended that provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with. The contention is untenable. Section 50 of the Act is not applicable to search of bag being carried by the accused. Moreover, Section 50 of the Act was also complied with in the instant case inasmuch the petitioner was informed of his right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, if he so desired. However, the petitioner replied that he could be searched by the Sub Inspector, who was heading the police party, which apprehended the accused. Counsel for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi reported as (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 392, contended that the petitioner should have been taken to Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for his search. The contention cannot be accepted. When the petitioner himself did not desire to be taken before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for search, there was no such necessity for taking him before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. On the contrary, Section 50 of the Act, as interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court, simply requires that the accused should be informed of his right to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, if he so desired. In the instant case, this requirement was satisfied by the police. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no ground for releasing the Crl. Misc. No. M-32217 of 2011 3 petitioner on bail. Dismissed, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case. October 21, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE