The Appellant, a Kenyan national, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court for offences under Sections 22(c) and 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for possession of cocaine and LSD, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. He appealed to the High Court, arguing non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, among other grounds. The High Court found that the Gazetted Officer was part of the raiding team when the Appellant was informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer, which compromised the independence required under Section 50. The Court held this as gross non-compliance, rendering the search illegal and the evidence inadmissible. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted.
The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed the Criminal Appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Court, South Goa at Margao -- The Court held that there was non-compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as the Gazetted Officer was part of the raiding team when the Appellant was informed of his rights, which violated the mandatory safeguards -- The search was deemed illegal, and the evidence obtained was inadmissible -- The Appellant was acquitted of offences under Sections 22(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act -- The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 50 must be strict and substantial to protect the rights of the accused
The High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, and acquitted the Appellant of all charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 72
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1069 of 2024 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1070 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2026-01-19
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether there was compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) during the search of the Appellant, particularly regarding the presence of a Gazetted Officer as part of the raiding team at the time of informing the accused of his rights
Before Judge: Shreeram V. Shirsat J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-GOA:73
Advocate(s): Shivraj Gaonkar, D. Gaonkar, Shithil Prabhu Dessai, Prabhav Sirvoicar for Appellant, Pravin N. Faldessai for Respondent
Appellant: Joseph Achola Ouma
Respondent: State of Goa
Nature of Litigation: Criminal Appeal challenging conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
Remedy Sought: The Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court
Filing Reason: The Appeal was filed due to alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 50, during the search procedure
Previous Decisions: The Additional Sessions Court, South Goa at Margao, convicted the Appellant under Sections 22(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines
Issues: Whether there was compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) during the search of the Appellant
Submissions/Arguments: The Appellant argued non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act as the Gazetted Officer was part of the raiding team at the time of informing the accused of his rights, violating mandatory safeguards The Respondent argued that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there was proper compliance with Section 50 and other provisions of the NDPS Act
Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) must be strict and substantial; the presence of a Gazetted Officer as part of the raiding team at the time of informing the accused of his rights vitiates the safeguard and renders the search illegal, making the evidence inadmissible
Judgment Excerpts: The main ground on which much thrust and emphasis has been laid is complete non-compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act on the part of the raiding team It will therefore have to be seen whether the evidence that has come on record, the compliance under Section 50 of NDPS Act can be said to done in total letter and spirit or is there a gross non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act
Procedural History: On 29.01.2019, the Appellant was searched and found with cocaine and LSD; he was arrested and charged under the NDPS Act -- The Trial Court convicted him on 16.11.2024 -- The Appellant filed an Appeal to the High Court on 19.01.2026, which was heard and decided
