A. B. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal arises out of judgement and order dated 21-12-93 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in T. R. Case No. , 4 of 1993 whereby the Ld. Judge convicted the accused appellant under Section 20 (b) (i) of the 'narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 herein after referred to as the Act and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer further R. I. for two (2) months. ( 2 ) THE Prosecution Case in short is that on 11-1-1993 O. C. , E. I. B. , Howrah was on duty at Howrah Railway Station in its New Complex Building along with the Deputy Excise Collector, one A. S. I. and some Excise Constables. Around 1. 05 there was an announcement of the arrival of Down Coromondal Express to be placed at Platform No. 20. Accordingly the aforesaid Excise Personnel posted themselves towards the Engine side of the Platform in order to carry out their duty for prevention and checking of the offence under the Act. One of them namely Constable Bhuban Chandra Bera found the accused appellant going with a suitcase on his right hand and on suspicion he intercepted him. He called the O. C. and the latter along with the other Excise Personnel present also came there. The O. C. told the Constable to call a public witness and one Manick Chakraborty was brought. Thereafter the accused appellant was searched in the presence of the Deputy Excise Collector. The accused at the asking (of) the O. C. brought out a key ring and a Railway ticket from his pocket. The suitcase was opened with the help of the key found in that ring and some quantity of Ganja kept in a Plastic Cover was found inside. The Constable brought weighing scale from the earby Excise Office and on weighment the quantity of Ganja was found to be 5 K. G. The seizure list was prepared complying with all the formalities. The O. C. prepared two samples out of the seized Ganja and put labels on the same and also affixed his seal. One of the samples was sent for Chemical Analysis through his Superior Officer. The Railway ticket was also subsequently labelled and sealed. The O. C. prepared two samples out of the seized Ganja and put labels on the same and also affixed his seal. One of the samples was sent for Chemical Analysis through his Superior Officer. The Railway ticket was also subsequently labelled and sealed. So also the suitcase, the key ring and personal cash received from the accused. The witnesses present as also the accused signed on all the labels, seizure list etc. A copy of the seizure list was also given to the accused. The accused and also the alamats were taken to the office of the O. C. and from there the accused was forwarded to the Court on the said afternoon. Subsequently, the result of Chemical Analysis was received from the Chemical Examiner through Deputy Commissioner of Excise (Prevention) and the seized article was confirmed to be Ganja. On receipt of the said report and after completion of necessary enquiry the O. C. submitted a Prosecution Report against the accused on 3-5-93 under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act on which cognizance was taken by the Learned Judge. ( 3 ) DURING trial charge under the aforesaid Section was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty. It is also the defence case that the suitcase was unclaimed and it was falsely planted on him and that nothing was recovered from his possession. ( 4 ) THE Prosecution examined six (6) witnesses including the Chemical Examiner (P. W. 1), O. C. , Howrah (P. W. 2), the Deputy Excise Collector who at the relevant time was also holding the additional Charge of Howrah E. I. B. Check Post (P. W. 4), Excise Constable (P. W. 3) and also public witness to search and seizure list (P. W. 5 ). The other witness (P. W. 3) was simply tendered. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge on a scrutiny of the evidence on record concluded that the search and seizure list were made in accordance with law, that the accused appellant was found to be in possession of 5 kg. of Ganja without any permission or authority for such possession and accordingly he convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner as stated earlier. of Ganja without any permission or authority for such possession and accordingly he convicted and sentenced the accused in the manner as stated earlier. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved, present appeal has been preferred challenging the finding of the learned trial Judge on the ground that the judgement and the findings are based on hypothetical grounds, that the finding is unwarranted, that Section 36-A (d) and Section 36 (3) of the Act were not complied with and that the sentence is too high. ( 7 ) THE Learned Defence Advocate, Mr. Ashraf Ali strenuously argued before us only one on one point namely alleged non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. He did not rely on the other grounds taken in the Memo of appeal. Section 50 is a vital provision in the N. D. P. S. Act and the reason for its inclusion in our opinion is twofold. It protects the interest of the person to be searched for an alleged offence under the N. D. P. S. Act and at the same time it protects the interest of the prosecution in as much as it makes the entire proceeding more authentic and creditworthy. The Ld. Advocate for obvious reason gave stress on the first point and it has been argued before us that no option was given to the accused appellant to have the search conducted in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as required under the Law. There is no doubt that Section 50 of the Act is mandatory and in case of its non-observance, the accused is entitled to be aquitted. It has been argued for the State that there was no necessity to give any option to the accused appellant informing him to his right to get himself searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate in this case as because a Gazetted Officer was already present there at the time of the search. On a scrutiny of the evidence of P. W. 4, Chiranjil Ganguly we get that he was a Deputy Excise Collector at Calcutta E. I. B. Investigation Circuit and also was holding the Additional Charge of Howrah E. I. B. Check Post on the relevant day. He also asserted that he was a Gazetted Officer at the relevant time. On a scrutiny of the evidence of P. W. 4, Chiranjil Ganguly we get that he was a Deputy Excise Collector at Calcutta E. I. B. Investigation Circuit and also was holding the Additional Charge of Howrah E. I. B. Check Post on the relevant day. He also asserted that he was a Gazetted Officer at the relevant time. There is no dispute about it and it is also not disputed that he was a Gazetted Officer of one of the Department as mentioned in Section 42 of the Act. It is the argument of the Ld. Defence Advocate that the presence of P. W. 4 is not enough as because he was already with the raiding party but option ought to have been given to the accused to have his liberty to be searched in presence of any other Gazetted Officer. If we carefully go through the Section 50 of the Act it will appeal that the law gives the person about to be searched for an alleged offence under the Act an option that if he so requires he may get himself searched in presence of the nearest Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate. The law does not say that the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate in whose presence search is required to be made shall be to the liking of the person concerned. The reason behind the inclusion of the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate in Section 50 of the Act is nothing but to see that the entire proceeding is done in a fair manner and with utmost importiality. The legislature thought it wise to include these categories of officials in Section 50 of the Act as it was considered that the person holding the post of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate must be a responsible one. Therefore, P. W. 4 shall be deemed to be a responsible person as he is a Gazetted Officer. He cannot cease to be a responsible person simply because he was present along with the other members of the raiding party. We have also scrutinised the evidence of P. W. 4 and in course of cross-examination no suggestion was given to him importing partiality or bias in favour of the Prosecution. The only suggestion has been given to the effect that the witness was not present in course of the proceeding which he of course denied. We have also scrutinised the evidence of P. W. 4 and in course of cross-examination no suggestion was given to him importing partiality or bias in favour of the Prosecution. The only suggestion has been given to the effect that the witness was not present in course of the proceeding which he of course denied. On scrutiny of the evidence of P. W. 4. we do not find anything to disbelieve his testimony. Accordingly we come to the conclusion that Section 50 of the Act has sufficiently been complied with. ( 8 ) WE have already stated that the Learned Defence Advocate did not argue on other points taken in the Memo of appeal. Nevertheless, we have scrutinised the evidence on record. The evidence given by P. W. 2 namely the O. C. has been sufficiently corroborated by P. W. 3, P. W. 4 and also by P. W. 5, latter being the dis-interested witness having no connection with the raiding party. The evidence of P. W. 1 the Chemical Examiner shows that the article seized and subsequently sent to him in sealed cover was found to be Ganja. ( 9 ) THE grounds taken in Memo of appeal regarding non-compliance of 26-A (d) and Section 36 (3) of the Act are absolutely without any substance in as much as the special Court headed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah was quite competent to deal with the case under the Act and he also took cognizance of the offence following a complaint made to that effect by competent officer in accordance with Section 36-A (d) of the Act. ( 10 ) IN the result there is absolutely no substance behind this appeal. The appeal accordingly fails. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge is affirmed. S. N. MALLICK, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed.