V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) THIS is to dispose of an application for bail by Neelam under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for being in possession of 21 Kg. of POST KA CHOORA on 3. 3. 1993. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosueciton has been that on 3. 3. 1993, SI Hira Lal, while accompanied by Police Constables was present in the Peera Garhi Relief Camp when he received a secret information that POST KA CHOORA was being sold at a shop in A Block and in the mean time, SI Jagdish Prashad, Incharge P. P. Tilak Vihar, while accompanied by ASI Ram Kumar, Constable Lal Chand and Sardar Singh, an accused under Section 15 of the Act in FIR No. 124/93 came and the secret information was verified. Accordingly, a raiding party was organized by SI Hira Lal in which, all the aforesaid persons were joined besides one Nathi Ram from the public. ( 3 ) NEELAM was found sitting at Shop A-375, Refugee Camp, who was pointed out by Sardar Singh as also by the secret informer. The premises of Neelam were searched after lady Constable Shailender was called and two bags having 12kg and 9kg of POST KA CHOORA were recovered. One Kg. was taken out as sample and thereafter, sample and the remaining POST KA CHOORA was converted into two parcels and were sealed with the seal of GS. CFSL form was also filled in and these were taken into possession. Notice under Section 50 of the Act was also given to Smt. Neelam if she wanted to get the premises searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, which offer was, however, declined by her. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner was challaned. ( 4 ) I have heard Ms. Neerja Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the records. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a refugee having migrated from Punjab and she was residing in the room along with her husband and children, where shop was also being run by her husband. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a refugee having migrated from Punjab and she was residing in the room along with her husband and children, where shop was also being run by her husband. She has further submitted that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and there has been noncompliance of the provisions contained in Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. It has also been submitted that when there was a prior information regarding the commission of the offence, there is no explanation as to why lady constable was not joined in the raiding party before actually going to the premises of the petitioner. A prayer has, therefore, been made for the release of the petitioner on bail. ( 6 ) APPLICATION has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State, who has submitted that all the mandatory provisions have been complied with and that the recovery has been effected from the petitioner and thus no case has been made out for the release of the petitioner on bail. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the application may be dismissed. ( 7 ) A perusal of the trial court file shows that a secret information was received by SI Hira Lal while present in the Refugee Relief Camp at about 11 a. m. and the premises of the petitioner were searched at 11. 30 a. m. Rukka was sent to the police station at 12 50 p. m. There is an endorsement on the seizure memo with regard to the SHO having affixed the seal RKS on the samples and the case property, which along with the CFSL form were got deposited with MHCR. The compliance of Section 50 of the Act is required when personal search is to be effected of a person on the basis of a prior information about the commission of an offence under the Act. In the instant case, it was, however, not the case of taking personal search of the petitioner and thus, the question as to whether notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to the petitioner and if so at what time, may have to be gone into during the trial. It appears that Sardar Singh, who had been arrested in case FIR No. 124 dated 2. 3. It appears that Sardar Singh, who had been arrested in case FIR No. 124 dated 2. 3. 1993 under Section 15 of the Act, had made a disclosure oat 3. 3. 1994 about the sale of POST KA CHOORA from a shop in Refugee Camp recorded by ASI Ram Kumar, who met the Investigation Officer after he had received secret information. The question as to whether there was any non-compliance of Section 42, may have to be gone into by the trial court. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the State has referred to the statements of witnesses; recorded during investigation. A perusal of the documents as also the statements does not make out a case for the release of the petitioner on ball. ( 9 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, application falls and is dismissed. The trial court, however, would dispose of the case on merits on the basis of the evidence, that may be produced by the parties, independent of the observations made in this order.