S. M. SONI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) THE learned Judge has granted bail, placing reliance on two judgments, one of Balbir Singh ( 1994 (3) SCC 299 ) and another of Hathi @ Mangalsinh ( 1993 (2) GLR 1743 ). So far as Sec. 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act is concerned, it is attracted, when a person accused of offences punishable under N. D. P. S. is required to be searched and not his premises. Therefore, much time was spent by the learned Counsel in arguing his case on the ground of non-compliance of Sec. 50 despite this Court telling him that this Court is in agreement with his argument, which is based on the judgment in Balbir Singh (supra), that non-compliance of Secs. 41, 42 and 50 vitiates the trial. The question is whether non-compliance of any of these provisions can be inferred from the First Information Report only ? In the First Information Report, compliance of Sec. 41, Sec. 42 or Sec. 50 is not required to be stated. What is required to be stated in the First Information Report is the facts constituting offence as required under Sec. 154 of the Code. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 154 reads as under :-"154. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. . . . . "this sub-section contemplates for reducing in writing information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 37 of N. D. P. S. Act provides that every offence punishable under the N. D. P. S. Act is a cognizable one, and the information has been taken down in writing. . . . . "this sub-section contemplates for reducing in writing information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 37 of N. D. P. S. Act provides that every offence punishable under the N. D. P. S. Act is a cognizable one, and the information has been taken down in writing. Thus, Sec. 154 of Code does not contemplate for the formalities and procedure of search, seizure and arrest to be stated in the F. I. R. These are all matters of procedure, no doubt, required to be strictly followed, but are not required to be stated in the First Information report. ( 3 ) SECTION 42 (2) of N. D. P. S. Act provides that any information received of an offence under the N. D. P. S. Act is required to be taken down in writing and is also required to be sent forthwith to the superior official. The facts showing compliance of Sec. 42 (2) of N. D. P. S. Act are not required to be stated in the First Information report. It is a matter of evidence and Investigation Officer (I. O.) who is normally examined as a last witness may prove that the information in writing is taken down and sent to his superior official and how sent. For the search after sunset and before sunrise, whether I. O. was required to assign the reasons and whether reasons are assigned or not, and if not why, can be explained by him. Thus, compliance or not of Secs. 41, 42 and 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act cannot be taken into consideration simply from silence of compliance in F. I. R. and at the stage of consideration of bail application. Therefore, finding of the learned Judge that all mandatory provisions of Secs. 41, 42 and 50 of the Act are not complied with on the basis of First information Report is erroneous and not warranted by any provision of law. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is not only erroneous, but is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act. 41, 42 and 50 of the Act are not complied with on the basis of First information Report is erroneous and not warranted by any provision of law. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is not only erroneous, but is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act. If the learned Judge has proceeded on the basis of a wrong assumption of law and facts and has arrived at a particular conclusion, which he would not have otherwise come, that conclusion is required to be set aside and corrected by this Court. In this view of the fact, there is no difficulty to set aside the order to this extent. ( 4 ) APART from this, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has relied on a judgment in the case of Hathi @ Mangalsinh (supra), and it has been held that the substance found does not fall within the definition of "poppy straw" as defined in clause 2 (xviii) of N. D. P. S. Act. In my opinion, there is misreading of the said judgment. That judgment does not hold that substance known as posh-na-doda is not a poppy straw. To decide whether it is poppy straw or not, it is necessary to have the opinion of the expert. In the case of Hathi @ Mangalsinh (supra), in the opinion of the expert from Forensic Science Laboratory, it was not shown that the substance falls within the definition of "poppy straw". Any substance popularly known as poshno- dodo may or may not be "poppy straw" and/or "opium poppy", but normally it contains opium poppy as posh-na-doda normally belongs to the family of "papaveraceae". However, it is the expert who can opine whether the substance falls within the definition of "narcotic substance". In the case of Hathi @ Mangalsinh (supra), the expert had not opined that the fragments of poppy capsules alleged to be found from possession of the accused are poppy capsules of plant of Papavar somniferum Linn. It is also not opined by the expert that the said fragments of poppy capsules belongs to any other species of Papavar member of Papaveraceae family. It is also not opined by the expert that the said fragments of poppy capsules belongs to any other species of Papavar member of Papaveraceae family. Non-mention by the expert as to which species of member of Papavar of the Papaveraceae family the fragments of Papavar capsules found from the accused belong and/or from the said species or member opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and the same may be declared to be opium poppy by notification in the Official Gazette by the Central Government does not bring that substance found within the definition of opium poppy. It is necessary to say that substance analysed is either (a) the plant of the species Papavar Somniferum L. and (b) the plant of other species of Papavar from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purpose of this Act to show the substance to be poppy straw as defined in N. D. P. S. Act and none other members and its species though of Papaveraceae family, yet opium cannot be extracted. In absence of any expert opinion, it cannot be said that it is not a narcotic substance. Thus, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly relied on the judgment in Hathi @ Mangalsinh (supra) and held that there is no prima facie case. ( 5 ) THE conclusion arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that there is no prima facie case is not warranted by any evidence or material on record and the same is based on misreading of the above judgments. ( 6 ) THUS, grant of bail is based on some misconception of law and facts and, therefore, the said order is required to be quashed and set aside. I would have remanded the matter back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to consider the case afresh after properly reading the said judgments and applying the principles properly, if there would have been a case made out on facts also. In the instant case, narcotic substance is alleged to have been found from the possession of the accused, for which there is no satisfactory explanation; nor has he produced any pass or permit. .