JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, A. C. J.—Both these applications (Cr. M. P. (M) No. 1099 of 1993, Christiance Lagattolla v. State of H. P. and Cr. M P. (M) No. 1100 of 1993, Daniela Fiegna v. State of H P., are proposed to be decided by a common order since they arise out of the same incident and the accused were in occupation of the same accommodation when the incident, as per the prosecution, took place, Shri K. S, Banyal learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that these applications be treated to be petitions under section 482 of the Code .of Criminal Procedure and the First Information Report as well as the proceedings initiated by the police in this case be quashed in the interest of justice since neither a case is made out nor there is any likelihood of their being convicted by the court in case the trial proceeds. The prayer is allowed. 2. The petitioners, both students, visited India and at the relevant time they were at Vashisht, a suburb of Manali—a tourist spot in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to the police, they were occupying a room in "Kulvi Lodge". The police got information that they had purchased charas from someone and, therefore, they wanted the search of the room in their occupation. Accordingly, the police came to the room. It was knocked. After knocking, Christiance Lagattolla opened the door, followed by Daniela Fiegna. The police told them that they wanted the search of the room since they had information that charas possessed by them was kept there. The police also brought to their notice whether they could conduct the search or the same could be done by the Magistrate or any other Gazetted Officer. Consent was obtained and the police proceed ed to search the room. From a bag, kept near the window, 800 grams of charas, wrapped in a polythene paper, was found. 25 grams of charas was separated by way of sample and the rest was sealed in the presence of the witnesses. The accused were intimated the grounds of their arrest and information was sent to the superior officer within the stipulated time. 3. These applications appeared before the Court on 17-12-1993. Interim bail was granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu/Lahaul and Spitti. The accused were intimated the grounds of their arrest and information was sent to the superior officer within the stipulated time. 3. These applications appeared before the Court on 17-12-1993. Interim bail was granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu/Lahaul and Spitti. The learned Counsel for them was asked to ensure the presence of the petitioners in the Court on December 24, 1993. Today, they are present. They were questioned. Both the petitioners know English only. They do not know Hindi. They explained that no charas was recovered from their room. Police came and asked for their passports and they were taken to the police station. Documents were got signed. They do not know anything about the matter. 4. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, placed the case file for perusal of the Court. After going through the investigation file, it is found that the police had prior information about this matter. While taking consent of the petitioners for search by them, the papers have been prepared in Hindi. The consent of the petitioners has been taken down in their handwriting in English. The document nowhere suggests that the accused were explained in English whether they consented to the search of the room by the police or they wanted that the same be done by the nearest Magistrate or by any Gazetted Officer. The police knew very well that the petitioners did not understand any language other than English. I think, this has seriously prejudiced the right of the accused under section 50 (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho tropic Substances Act, 1985 in this case. 5. Requirement of section 57 of the Act is not ascertainable from any of the documents available on the file. This also tells upon the accuracy of the police investigation resulting in prejudice to the accused. Similarly, there is no document on the file showing that the Investigating Officer sent full report of all the particulars of the arrest and seizure to the immediate superior officer within 48 hours. This also tells upon the accuracy of the police investigation resulting in prejudice to the accused. Similarly, there is no document on the file showing that the Investigating Officer sent full report of all the particulars of the arrest and seizure to the immediate superior officer within 48 hours. Compliance of the provisions of sections 50 (2) and 57 of the Act has been held mandatory by this Court in large number of cases, some of which are : 1989 Cr LJ 1412, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar etc., Bansi Lal v. State of H. P., 1991 (1) Sim LC 99, Cr. Appeal No. 168 of 1989, Narinder Singh alias Mali v. State of H P., decided on April 8, 1992, Cr. Revision No 49 of 1992, State v. Prem Nath, decided on 17-7-1992, Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 1988, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar, decided on 23rd July, 1992 and Cr. A. No. 336 of 1987, State of H P. v. Durga Datt, decided on July 23, 1992. Though section 55 of the Act has been held directory, however, the accused cannot be convicted in case non-compliance of this provision has caused prejudice to him. 6. In addition to what has been said above, it is noticeable from the police papers that the zimini papers used in the investigation of this case are not serially numbered. The requirement of using serially numbered zimini papers has been laid down by this Court in Cr Appeal Nos. 66 and 67 of 1979, Bhagwan Singh v. State and Bir Singh v. State, decided on 7-1-1981 and ILR 1982 HP 233, Jagan Nath v. State, and necessary directions were issued to the police department in this regard. The object behind this is that in order to ensure proper and truthful investigation, use of serially numbered zimini papers is sine qua non. It eliminates all chances of fabrication by the investigating agency and genuine and rightful protection to the accused. On this basis, seen in the context of the explanation of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the investigation has been satisfactory and in accordance with law. 7. In the aforesaid background, it can be said that conviction of the accused is not at all possible and they are likely to be acquitted in all circumstances in case the police is directed to proceed with the matter. 7. In the aforesaid background, it can be said that conviction of the accused is not at all possible and they are likely to be acquitted in all circumstances in case the police is directed to proceed with the matter. It is, therefore, necessary in the interest of justice to quash the First Information Report as well as the further proceedings taken in this case. Accordingly, First Information Report No. 251 of 1993, registered by Police Station, Manali, for an offence under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against the accused as well as the further proceedings taken thereon are hereby quashed. The bail bonds executed by the petitioners are hereby discharged and they are set- free. Dasti copy on usual terms. Order accordingly.