As per case facts, during a routine police patrol, an individual was observed running upon seeing the police. This suspicious behavior led to his interception and a search, conducted in ... the presence of local witnesses (Panchas), which uncovered a small quantity of Charas. A complaint was lodged, and the substance was sent for forensic analysis, resulting in a charge sheet. The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming the evidence was fabricated. The Sessions Judge convicted him, a decision later affirmed by the High Court, imposing rigorous imprisonment and a significant fine. The question arose whether the mandatory safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, requiring the accused to be informed of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, were applicable in this scenario, given that the search originated from suspicion based on the accused's actions rather than prior intelligence. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not triggered when a search is initiated due to general suspicion during routine patrolling, without any prior information about the individual possessing contraband. The Court emphasized that if contraband is recovered during a search conducted in the normal course of investigation or patrolling, without pre-existing intelligence, the requirements of Section 50 are not attracted. It found no violation regarding Section 57 (reporting arrest and seizure) and upheld the conviction, agreeing with the High Court's assessment of the evidence as credible. The appeal was dismissed.