JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal the appellant has challenged his conviction under sections 8/15 & 8/20 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. On 10.1.1994, PW 1, Jile Singh Head Constable was holding charge of Police Station Sidhmukh as SHO. At about 2.00 p.m. he received an information by an informer that one person is travelling from Rajgarh to Sidhmukh in a bus and he is carrying poppy husk. This information was recorded by Jile Singh, PW 1. He sent a radiogram to C.O. Rajgarh. SHO, Sidhmukh, Bhanwarlal being on leave it was requested by PW 1 in his radiogram message that some Inspector rank officers be deputed. On receiving this message SHO Rajgarh, Shri Bhanwar Lal and Circle Officer Shri Mangilal reached Sidhmukh bus stand. After arriving there, they called the Motbir witnesses and summoned the accused, who was carrying a bag on his shoulder. Accused was informed of his rights Under Section 50 of the Act. After that, search was conducted and the accused was found in possession of poppy husk and Ganja. 3. The counsel for the appellant has urged that the search of the appellant was conducted in pursuance of information sent by SHO who was a Head Constable and on this information the Officers who arrived were part of the investigating squad. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the persons conducting the search to inform the accused of his rights Under section 50 of the Act. No notice Under section 50 was given. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has dealt with this point and has come to the conclusion that the Circle Officer, Sh. Mangilal was a Gazetted Officer and the search was conducted in his presence therefore, here was compliance of Section 50. There is no notice available on record inconfirmity with Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has relied on the contents of Ex. P/1 Search Memo. Ex. P/1 is a document which has been made after the search. Any recital in this document would not meet the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Accused is required to be informed of his rights before the search is conducted. The document Ex. P/1 cannot be treated as to be a notice Under Section 50 of the Act. There is no other document which can be considered as to be an information to the accused Under Section 50 of the Act. Accused is required to be informed of his rights before the search is conducted. The document Ex. P/1 cannot be treated as to be a notice Under Section 50 of the Act. There is no other document which can be considered as to be an information to the accused Under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, it can be safely held that the valuable right of the accused Under section 50 of the Act has been violated. Further in Ex. 3(A) which is the extract of the register of Malkhana it has been recorded that items Nos. 2 & 5 which are the seized articles were taken in at 7.30 a.m. on 13.01.1994 and were returned back on 14.1.1994, who took these two samples on 13.1.1994 and returned on 14.1.1994, is not clear from this entry. Further, there is no evidence that during the period they remained with the person, he has not tempered with the seals of these articles. It is also pertinent to note that the recital of the register says that these two articles were taken for getting a letter. This requirement of taking these samples out of the Malkhana is understandable. For obtaining a letter, articles are not required to be removed from the Malkhana. In any case the custody of these two articles for the dates aforesaid was with whom is not clear and therefore, a doubt is created about the safety of these articles. 4. In view of the fact that the articles remained with someone for two days who has not spoken about the safety of the seals and non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act, a strong suspicion arises. Therefore, finding of fault arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused/appellant cannot be upheld and consequently the charges are held to be not proved. The conviction and sentences passed against the accused Under Sections 8/15 & 8/20 of the Act are set aside. He is in jail, he may be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******