Sat Pal, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition for grant of bail under Section 439of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) IN this case FIR 223/91 was registered at Police Station Kotiamubarak Pur under Section 20/61/85 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropicsubstances Act (in short the Act) against the petitioner for the alleged recovery of 150 grams of Charas which was in the from of stick. ( 3 ) MR. Paul. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersubmitted that in the present case there is a violation of Section 50 of theact inasmuch as notice under Section 50 served on the petitioner does notbear the signatures of any witness. He further submitted that there is aviolation of Section 55 of the Act also as the samples were not taken in thepresence of the Magistrate. He further alleged the violation of Section 57 ofthe Act on the ground that the report regarding arrest and seizure was notsent to the immediate official superior. In support of his contentions, thelearned Counsel relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in thecase of Usman Haidarkhan Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra. 1991 (1) Crimes777 and a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Nathiya v. State of Rajasthan1992 0 CCR 133. He. therefore, contended that in view of the violation ofthe statutory provisions of the Act, the petitioner should be released on bail. ( 4 ) MS. Bhatia, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State,however, submitted that there is no requirement of Section 50 that the noticeshould bear the signatures of any witness. She also submitted that theservice/refusal of the notice will be proved during the course of trial of thecase. She further submitted that in terms of Section 55 of the Act, thesample is not required to he drawn in the presence of the Magistrate. Asregards the alleged violation of Section 57 of the Act, he drew my attentionto the police diary of 22/08/1991 wherein it is stated that the A. C. P. has been informed about the particulars of the present case. The learnedcounsel further submitted that charce has already been framed in this caseand in view of the aforesaid facts the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The learnedcounsel further submitted that charce has already been framed in this caseand in view of the aforesaid facts the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Insupport of her submissions a reliance was placed on a Full Bench judgmentof Orissa High Court reported in the case of Banka Das v. State of Orissa,1993 Crl. L J. 442. In this judgment it has been held that the Court willnot be justified by entering into an enquiry as to whether certain proceduresprescribed under the N. D. PS. Act have been complied-with or not at thetime of considering a bail petition. ( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions madeby the learned Counsel for the parties. Prima facie there is no requirementthat notice under Section 50 of the Act should bear the signatures of anywitness. However, this point can be gone into at the time of trial of the case. As regards the alleged violation of Section 55, a reading of the aforesaidsection shows that the sample is not required to be taken in the presence of amagistrate. The evidentiary value of an oral report given to the superiorofficer under Section 57 of the Act can be gone into during the course oftrial. The judgment in the case of Nathiya (supra) is not applicable as inthat case seized bag was opened without obtaining prior permission of themagistrate. ( 6 ) IN view of the above discussion. I am of the opinion that this isnot a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed. The observations given hereinabove will not have any bearing on the meritsof the case.