JUDGMENT: ---This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Case No. 84 of 1991 dated 24th March, 1992, convicting the appellant-accused under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to under go R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, the complainant P.W. 1 on receiving information, carried out raid at open space near Manohar Talkies, Dhule city and near Pahelwan Theatre, the appellant-accused was found possessing manufactured drug containing heroin. It is alleged that the complainant sent one panch with 10 rupees note which was signed by him, to the appellant-accused for purchasing brown sugar from the appellant-accused. Thereafter, a raid was carried out and the appellant-accused was found with 10 packets of brown sugar with him. A panchanama was drawn in the presence of panchas and recorded the statement of the accused and he was prosecuted after obtaining the report from the Chemical Analyser. The appellant-accused was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w. section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. After recording the evidence, the appellant-accused came to be convicted for an offence punishable under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default to undergo R.I. for two years. Hence this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel Mr. Mundargi for the Appellant emphatically submitted that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory procedure required under section 50 of the Act and therefore, the prosecution is vitiated and the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellant-accused is entitled for acquittal. The learned Counsel relied on the complaint Exhibit 7 and the evidence of P.W. 1. It has been submitted that admittedly, raid was carried out on prior information noted in the police station diary Exhibit 28. However, the complainant who carried the raid did not followed the procedure under section 50 of the Act. The learned Counsel relied on the complaint Exhibit 7 and the evidence of P.W. 1. It has been submitted that admittedly, raid was carried out on prior information noted in the police station diary Exhibit 28. However, the complainant who carried the raid did not followed the procedure under section 50 of the Act. The learned Counsel did not question the authorisation of the complainant in investigating the case but the learned Counsel emphatically submitted that in view of the Supreme Court Judgment reported in 1994 Judgment Today, Volume -2, page 108, the procedure laid down under section 50 of the Act is held to be mandatory provision. Failure thereof will vitiate the trial. Section 50 of the Act reads as under :- 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.---(1) When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by any one excepting a female. 4. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court (1994 Judgments Today, Volume-2, Page 108) in para 27(5) is as under :--- "On prior information, the empowered Officer or authorised officer while acting under sections 41(2) or 42 should comply with the provisions of section 50 before the search of the person is made and such person should be informed that if he so requires, he shall be produced before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate as provided thereunder. It is obligatory on the part of such officer to inform the person to be searched. It is obligatory on the part of such officer to inform the person to be searched. Failure to inform the person to be searched and if such person so requires, failure to take him to the gazetted officer or the Magistrate, would amount to non-compliance of section 50 which is mandatory and thus it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial. After being so informed whether such person opted for such a course or not would be a question of fact. 5. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Balbirs case undoubtedly, clearly guided the investigating agency and to the prosecution in the event of prior information, the raid or seizure is carried out. The procedure laid down under section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is required to be followed, failing in it, vitiates the prosecution and the benefit will go to the accused, is a law. Of course, there were two conflicting views of the different High Courts including the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court, but now, the true legal position is set at right by the Supreme Court in the above-cited case, (State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh)1, 1994 Judgments Today, Volume-2, Page 108. In the instant case, admittedly, a raid was carried out on receiving the information which was reduced to writing in police station diary (Exhibit 28). A panch (P.W. 4) firstly sent to the appellant-accused with ten rupees note which was signed by the complainant, for purchasing the packet and thereafter, on seeing signal, a raid was carried out by the complainant It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was an utter violation of section 50 of the Act. That no opportunity was offered to the accused whether the accused wanted to get search of his person by any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It is an admitted fact that search was carried out on prior information which was reduced in writing. It is now well settled law that the procedure laid down under section 50(1) is mandatory. Admittedly, this procedure was not followed by the complainant and therefore, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in the above case (1994 Judgments Today, Volume-2, page 108), the prosecution is vitiated and the ultimate result is the prosecution fails, 6. In the result, appeal succeeds. Admittedly, this procedure was not followed by the complainant and therefore, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in the above case (1994 Judgments Today, Volume-2, page 108), the prosecution is vitiated and the ultimate result is the prosecution fails, 6. In the result, appeal succeeds. The judgment and order of conviction dated 24th March, 1992 is set aside. Appellant-accused is set at liberty forthwith, if not otherwise require in any other case. Appeal allowed. *****