Honble DALELA, J. – The short point on which the appeal is being decided does not require detailed discussion of facts and evidence. According to prosecution on 16.5.92 in Bilara at 11.00 a.m. the accused- appellant was searched and thereupon 2.500 kg. of opium was recovered from his possession. Thus he was charged for the offence under section 8/17-18 N.D. P.S. Act. After recording the necessary evidence and hearing both the sides the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Jodhpur vide his order dated 6.4.93 convicted the accused- appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. one lac. In default of the fine a further imprisonment for one year was directed. (2). Against this conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant. (3). In this case the provisions of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act have not been fully complied with. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh reported in (1) and in the case of Ali Mastaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa vs. State of Kerala reported in (2), it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that the provisions of section 50 are mandatory and the non-compliance whereof would vitiate the conviction. It has been held by the Apex Court that on prior information as contemplated u/s 42 N.D.P.S. Act the authorised or empowered officer should comply with the provisions of section 50 before the search of a person is made and such person would be informed that if he so requires he should be produced before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate as provided thereunder. The Apex Court has observed that before the authorised or empowered officer conducts a search he should give the accused an option to be searched either in the presence of a Gazetted officer or of a Magistrate. The Apex Court has expressly held that the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory and the non- compliance whereof would vitiate the conviction. In Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosas case the Apex Court has observed- `` In State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh (supra) it has been held that before the authorised or empowered officer conducts a search, he should give the accused an option to be searched either in the presence of a gazetted officer or of a Magistrate. In Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosas case the Apex Court has observed- `` In State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh (supra) it has been held that before the authorised or empowered officer conducts a search, he should give the accused an option to be searched either in the presence of a gazetted officer or of a Magistrate. It was also held that section 50 confers a valuable right on the person to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and if he so requires and the failure to provide that option to the accused vitiates his conviction. From the above observation, it is evident that it is imperative on the part of the officer conducting a search to inform the person to be searched of his right that if he so requires to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Thus, under section 50 the accused has to be given the option to be searched either in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or of a Magistrate. If both the options viz search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or of a Magistrate are not given the mandatory provisions of section 50 can not be said to have been complied with. If the accused is given Only one option i.e. to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, obviously the provisions of section 50 are not fully complied with. Similarly if the option is given only for the search in the presence of a Magistrate only even then the provisions of section 50 are not fully complied with. (4). In the case in hand, the accused-appellant was given only one option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The option to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate was not given to the accused-appellant. P.W.9 is S.H.O. Samundar Singh Rathore, who conducted the search of the appellant. He has deposed that before the search is made the accused was informed as to whether he wants the search to be effected in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and when the appellant expressed his desire for the search in the presence of the Gazetted Officer, he was taken before the Circle Officer or Dy.S.P., who was a Gazetted Officer and there the search was effected and the recovery was made. From the memos Ex. From the memos Ex. P.1 & Ex.P.2 it is also evident that the accused appellant was given only one option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. No option for the search in the presence of a Magistrate was given to the accused appellant. In my opinion. therefore, the provisions of section 50 have not been fully complied with. Thus, there has been a non-compliance of the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. (5). The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the recovery has been effected from the bag in the hand of the accused and, therefore, the provisions of section 50 do not apply. According to the learned Public Prosecutor section 50 applies to the case of body search and where the con- traband is recovered from the bag in the hand of the accused this section does not apply. The learned Public Prosecutor has based his argument on the basis of a decision given by the Bombay High Court in Ramji Duda Makwana vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (3). But in the case of Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rehman Moosa (supra) the charas was found from the bag of the appellant when he was sitting in the First Class Waiting Room, but the Supreme Court applied the provisions of section 50 N.D.P.S. Act and since the provisions of section 50 were found to be not-complied with the conviction and sentence was set aside. In face of this Supreme Court authority the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor does not hold good. (6). From the above discussion, it is evident that the mandatory provisions of section 50 N.D.P.S. Act have not been fully complied with in the present case in hand and as such the illegal search and recovery can not be used to fasten the liability of unlawful possession of the contraband opium on the accused- appellant. Consequently the conviction of the appe- llant can not be sustained. (7). The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. He is directed to be released forthwith unless not required in any other case, as he is acquitted of the offfence under section 8/17-18 N.D.P.S. Act.