N. K. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) BY this revision under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused petitioner has challenged the proceeding in connection with Lake Town P. S. Case No. 194 of 1994. dated 23. 10. 94 and also a proceeding arising out of that Lake Town P. S. Case No. 194 of 1994 being Case No. N-42 of 1994 under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending before the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, Nort 24-Parganas ( 2 ) THE fact, briefly stated, is that on 23rd October, 1994 at 9-15 hours the complainant J. K. Biswas, I. C. of Lake Town Police Station, along with Sub-Inspector S. Bhattacharyya, Sub-Inspector S. Bose, Constable Debabrata Sarkar, Constable Ranjit Dey and Ram Gobinda Roy, all of the Lake Town P. S. , conducted a raid at Dakshindari Bazar near 27 No. Railway Gate, being accompanied by some dis-interested witnesses, and apprehended the accused Mahadev Dey, Panchu Das, Pratima Ghosh, the present petitioner, and Fatema Bewa, and conducted search on them and recovered five small purias of brown sugar from the possession of the accused Panchu Das, weighing about 88 ml. , five purias of brown sugar weighing about 88 ml. from the accused Mahadev Dey, six purias of brown sugar weighing one gram from the accused petitioner Smt. Pratima Ghose and four purias of brown sugar from the accused Fatema Bewa, weighing about 70 ml. under different seizure lists. They were taken to the Lake Town Police Station and a complaint was lodged upon which the Lake Town P. S. Case No. 194 of 1994 dated 23. 10. 94 was started for an offence under section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and on the basis of the said P. S. Case a case was started before the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, tad Court, Barasat, being Case No. N-42 of 1994. Charge-sheet has been submitted and the trial commenced against the accused persons for an offence under section 21 of the aforesaid Act. ( 3 ) MR. Charge-sheet has been submitted and the trial commenced against the accused persons for an offence under section 21 of the aforesaid Act. ( 3 ) MR. Debabrata Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner Smt. Pratima Ghose, contended that as section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has not been complied with, the entire proceeding is bad so far as the petitioner is concerned. In support of his submission he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court, to wit, The State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh reported in AIR 1994 SC 1872 and also the case of Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala reported in 1995 C Cr LR (SC) 1. In the case of the State of Punjab (Supra) the Apex Court has held, inter alia, that on prior information, the empowered officer or authorised officer while acting under section 41 (2) or 42 should comply with the provisions of section 50 before the search on 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. 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. It is an imperative requirement on the part of the officer intending to search to inform the person to be searched of his right that if he so chooses, he will be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. Thus the provisions of section 50 are mandatory. ( 4 ) IN Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa's case (supra) the same view has been, expressed by the Supreme Court relying on the decision of the case of the State of Punjab (supra ). ( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned Advocate for the State, Mr. Thus the provisions of section 50 are mandatory. ( 4 ) IN Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa's case (supra) the same view has been, expressed by the Supreme Court relying on the decision of the case of the State of Punjab (supra ). ( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned Advocate for the State, Mr. Ahindra Kumar Adhya that the decisions of the Slate of Punjab (supra) and Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa (supra) are in connection with the seizure under sections 41 and 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and not in the public place as contemplated under section 43 of the said Act. As such, the imperative provision of section 50 of that Act will not apply in this case. ( 6 ) HEARD the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record. ( 7 ) FROM the record it appears that no female was in the party which conducted the raid and made search and two of the accused persons are female. Sub-section (4) of section 50 of the said Act envisages that no female shall be searched by any one excepting a female. But in the instant case the two female accused persons have been searched by some male persons and not by female as has been enjoined in sub-section (4) of section 50 of the said Act and as such the mandatory provision regarding search of the female has not been complied with. Sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act speaks that 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. ( 8 ) THERE is nothing on record to show that before search was made at the point when the raiding party were about to search the accused persons were taken to the nearest gazetted officer of any of the department as contemplated in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. ( 8 ) THERE is nothing on record to show that before search was made at the point when the raiding party were about to search the accused persons were taken to the nearest gazetted officer of any of the department as contemplated in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mona Das v. State of West Bengal reported in 1995 (1) CHN 130 has held, inter alia, that section 42 applies to a case of search where such search is made in a building, conveyance or enclosed place. But where the search was made on the person of the accused on an open public road (being a public place) and therefore such search is governed by section 43 and not section 42 of the Act. That was the observation regarding the fact and circumstances of that case. The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the case of search under section 43 of the Act in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra), that will be apparent from paragraph 17 of the said decision. Section 50 itself enjoins that even in case of a search which is about to he made of my person such person shall be taken without any delay to the nearest gazetted officer of any of the departments as mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest magistrate. The record is eloquently silent on this point as to whether the accused petitioner was taken to the nearest gazetted officer of any of the departments as mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest magistrate. That apart, the search was conducted on her person (petitioner herein), as has been pointed out earlier, not by a female but by a male. There are other infirmities regarding weight of the brown sugar. But sitting in revision I cannot go into that question. As the mandatory provision of section 50 has not been complied with, in the instant case, the proceeding is vitiated from the beginning starting from the point of search and as such the proceeding should not be allowed to be proceeded with. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the proceeding being Lake Town P. S. Case No. 194 of 1994 dated 23. 10. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the proceeding being Lake Town P. S. Case No. 194 of 1994 dated 23. 10. 94 and the proceedings started thereupon before the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, being Case No. N-42 of 1994 stand quashed not only against the petitioner but also against the accused persons too. The revisional application is allowed. Let a copy of tins order be sent down to the court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Barasat, 24-Parganas (North), by a special messenger at the cost of the petitioner as suggested by Mr. Banerjee. Such cost be put in course of this day. Application allowed.