Judgment :- The first accused in S.C. No. 157 of 1991 before Sessions Court, Thodupuzha is the appellant. Along with second accused he was charged for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Act for short). The prosecution case is that the second accused sold two kilograms of dried Ganja to the first accused on 22-7-1990. The first accused while he was travelling in Angel bus on 23-7-1990 at about 8.30 a.m. was found possessing Ganja by the Head Constable of Kattappana Police Station who was also travelling in the same bus. Suspecting that the packet contained contraband article, the Head Constable wanted the first accused to open it and show him the contents. On opening the packet, Ganja was seen inside. The bus was directed to be taken to the police station. The first accused and the contraband article were taken to the Sub Inspector of Police who prepared a mahazar and seized the article. Crime was registered and complaint was presented before the court below. The article on analysis was found to be Ganja. The court below on an appreciation of the evidence found the first accused guilty, convicted him and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. The second accused was found not guilty and acquitted. The first accused who is undergoing sentence in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram has sent this appeal through the Superintendent of the Prison. 2. Adv. Sri. P. N. Purushothama kaimal appeared for the appellant. Heard counsel and Public Prosecutor. 3. The main contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence was detected by Head Constable who is not an authorised officer under the Act. Counsel has pointed out that PW. 1, the Head Constable had seized the article and had produced the same before the Sub Inspector of Police (PW. 4) along with the first accused. The search having been conducted and the seizure made by an officer who is not authorised or empowered, the prosecution is illegal according to counsel and the trial is vitiated for that reason. But from Ext. P1 report of the Head Constable (PW. 1), Ext. P2 mahazar prepared by PW. 4) along with the first accused. The search having been conducted and the seizure made by an officer who is not authorised or empowered, the prosecution is illegal according to counsel and the trial is vitiated for that reason. But from Ext. P1 report of the Head Constable (PW. 1), Ext. P2 mahazar prepared by PW. 4 and the first information report submitted by him and the evidence tendered by PWs. 1 and 4, it is clear beyond doubt that PW. 1 has not effected seizure of the article whereas he has only taken the first accused along with the article to the authorised officer. 4. The earliest document is Ext. P1 report of PW. 1. Therein he has mentioned about the checking of the bag possessed by the first accused and ascertaining the contents to be Ganja. As that time the first accused was travelling in Angel bus in which PW. 1 also was a passenger. We directed the driver to take the bus to the police station. The bus stopped in front of the police station and the first accused and the article were taken by PW. 1 to the police station and produced before the Sub Inspector of Police who is an authorised officer under the Act. There is no indication in Ext. P1 to suggest that PW. 1 had seized the article. It is not clear as to whether PW. 1 has taken into custody the packet containing the contraband article. It would only appear that the first accused along with the contraband article was produced before the S.I. of Police. The mahazar prepared by PW. 4 mentions about the production of the first accused and the article by PW. 1. The contents of the packet were checked by the S.I. and the packet containing Ganja was seized by him. He prepared the seizure mahazar Ext. P2 and got it attested by two witnesses. Mention is seen made about these facts in Ext. P4 first information report also. 5. While examined as PW. 1, the Head Constable has spoken about the apprehension of the first accused from inside the bus. Feeling the smell of Ganja, suspicion was created in the mind of PW. 1 who saw a packet with the first accused. When asked about what the packet contained the first accused is alleged to have told him that it contained Ganja. 1, the Head Constable has spoken about the apprehension of the first accused from inside the bus. Feeling the smell of Ganja, suspicion was created in the mind of PW. 1 who saw a packet with the first accused. When asked about what the packet contained the first accused is alleged to have told him that it contained Ganja. His name and address were ascertained and the bus was stopped in front of the police station. The first accused along with the contraband article was taken to the police station and entrusted with the S.I. of Police. This is what has been spoken by PW. 1. Even from inside the bus PW. 1. had opened the packet and ascertained the contents to be Ganja. This is the evidence tendered by PW. 1. PW. 4, the Sub Inspector deposed about the presentation of Ext. P1 report to him along with the first accused and the contraband article. He perused the contents and prepared a mahazar and took the article into custody. Crime was registered and report submitted to the court. These two witnesses had therefore spoken about the apprehension of the first accused, the detection of the offence, seizure of the contraband article and the arrest of the first accused. PW. 1. the Head Constable had only apprehended the first accused and finding that he was possessing Ganja, the first accused and the article were produced before the Sub Inspector of Police. It was PW. 4, the Sub Inspector who actually seized the article and arrested the first accused. There is therefore nothing illegal in the Head Constable apprehending the first accused though he is not an authorised officer and in producing the first accused along with the article before an authorised officer. 6. It is argued by learned counsel for appellant that the Head Constable had taken the article into custody and that amounts to seizure under the Act. As observed earlier, there is no indication in the evidence to suggest that the contraband article had been taken into custody by PW. 1. Even if it be so, that dose not amount to a seizure. Mere holding of the packet for the purpose of producing the same along with the first accused before the authorised officer cannot be regarded as seizure because seizure implies something more than mere holding of an article in one's hand. 1. Even if it be so, that dose not amount to a seizure. Mere holding of the packet for the purpose of producing the same along with the first accused before the authorised officer cannot be regarded as seizure because seizure implies something more than mere holding of an article in one's hand. As per dictionary definition, seizure means taking hold of or taking possession of an article suddenly either by force or by authority of law. Taking possession of an article by warrant or legal authority or confiscation would also come within the meaning of seizure. PW. 1 had not taken possession of the article either by force or by any authority of law. He only wanted the first accused to open the packet to ascertain the contents. On ascertaining the same to be Ganja, the first accused along with the article was taken to the police station. No mahazar was prepared by PW. 1 nor is there anything in the report Ext. P. 1 to show that the article had been seized. Mere holding of the article by him, even if it be so, will not therefore amount to seizure of the article as contemplated under the Act. The seizure was in fact effected by PW. 4, the Sub-Inspector of Police who had prepared Ext. P2 mahazar at the time of such seizure The plea that the seizure was effected by an unauthorised officer is therefore without any substance. 7. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1872 : (1994 Cri LJ 3702), has laid down the procedure to be followed by an officer who detects an offence under the Act in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence as provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that when search is conducted or arrest is made in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence, Sec. 50 of the Act would not be attracted. If during such search or arrest, there is a chance of recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer who is not empowered should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If during such search or arrest, there is a chance of recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer who is not empowered should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Head Constable had acted strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court. There has been no illegality in the seizure of the article. 8. Counsel has then pointed out that the seizure was not made from a public place but from inside the police station and the mandatory requirement of Sec. 50 of the Act had not been complied with. Police Station is also a public place coming within the Explanation to Sec. 43 of the Act. That is a place intended for use by or accessible to the public. When the seizure was made from a public place, the question of compliance of Sec. 50 of the Act does not arise unless a request comes from the person concerned. This Court in decision in Muhammed v. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 Ker LT 24, has held so. No request is seen to have been made by the first accused to PW. 4 for conducting the search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The plea of non-compliance of Sec. 50 of the Act is therefore not sustainable. 9. Regarding the actual seizure of the article there is the testimony of PWs. 1 and 4 which is corroborated by two independent witnesses. They were passengers in the same bus. They had seen the packet with the first accused. They also alighted in front of the police station and followed the Head Constable and had attested the mahazar prepared by PW. 4. The article seized on alalysis was found to be Ganja. The prosecution has therefore succeeded in establishing the ingredients of the offence. The conviction was rightly entered by the Court below. 10. Regarding sentence also there is no reason to interfere. Appellant had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. He was found possessing 2 Kgs. of dried Ganja. Considering the quantity of the article possessed by him, the sentence awarded is only reasonable. 11. Appellant had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. He was found possessing 2 Kgs. of dried Ganja. Considering the quantity of the article possessed by him, the sentence awarded is only reasonable. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence against the appellant are sustained and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.