JUDGMENT 1. 1. The accused Lumba Ram by this appeal has challenged his conviction Under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), whereby he was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2. That the facts involved in the present case are that an information was received by SHO Shergarh Shri Shetan Singh, PW 8, from C.O. (Rural), Jodhpur that he should meet him at the inter-section of village Sai, where he intends to conduct a search. After receiving this information, SHO Shri Shetan Singh reached at the inter-section, he found that Dy. S.P. Shri Laxmi Narain and Addl. S.P. (Rural) Shri Girdharilal were present there alongwith Japta. All these persons proceeded to Dhani of the accused Lumba Ram, situated in sarhad of Sai. In the night they kept the vigilance. At about 6.00 a.m. in presence of mobtirs Girdhari Singh, Deepa Ram and Ghewar Ram, the search was conducted. It is worthwhile to mention here that before the search of Dhani, the search of accused Lumba Ram was taken by the Investigating Officer and in that search a key was found in the pocket of Lumba Ram. With the key, lock of the Drum, in which `Bazri' was filled in, was opened and from this Drum two bags of polythene were recovered. Apart from these polythene bags, there were another polythene bag, in which there was a plastic container, containing a scale and 10 coins of Rs. 1 and a coin of 50,10 & 5 paisa. In the two polythene bags recovered, one was containing 1 kg. opium and in another 600 gms. opium was found. 30 gms. samples were taken from each of the bags and usual sealing etc. was done. After completing all the formalities, the FIR, Ex. P/15 was recorded. Investigation was done and after investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant Lumba Ram and accused Bhana Ram. 3. The trial Court charged accused Bhana Ram Under Sections 17,18 & 29 of the Act. Accused Lumba Ram was charged Under Sections 17 & 18 of the Act. At the trial, prosecution produced 13 witnesses. In all 22 documents were produced by the prosecution and 7 documents were exhibited by the defence. The prosecution witnesses have tried to support the case of the prosecution as contained in the FIR. 4. Accused Lumba Ram was charged Under Sections 17 & 18 of the Act. At the trial, prosecution produced 13 witnesses. In all 22 documents were produced by the prosecution and 7 documents were exhibited by the defence. The prosecution witnesses have tried to support the case of the prosecution as contained in the FIR. 4. Counsel for the defence has urged that the prosecution witnesses have come with the case that in the first instance, PW 8 Shetan Singh gave his search to the mobtirs, and thereafter, he searched the person of Lumba Ram, accused. Therefore, in view of this statement of Shetan Singh, PW 8, it becomes obvious that the prosecution had intended to search the person of accused Lumba Ram. If in a case where the prosecution contemplates the recovery of substances defined in the Act and intends to search the person of an individual, then it is incumbent on the prosecution that a notice Under section 50 of the Act has to be given. In the instant case, though the prosecution witness PW 8 Shetan Singh states that he searched the person of accused Lumba Ram and then found a key on his person, which was ultimately used in opening the lock of the Drum, in which the contraband was recovered. But, he does not state that any notice Under section 50 of the Act was given to the accused. 5. From the narration of the facts stated above, it is clear that before the person of the accused was searched, no notice Under section 50 of the Act was given, and therefore, investigation has violated the Section 50 of the Act. 6. The problems of the prosecution does not end here. PW 6 Harish Chandra, Malkhana Incharge, states that he received 8 packets which were deposited in the Malkhana Register, entry of which is Ex. P/1. 7. Entry Ex. P/1 narrates the presence of 8 packets. But, in his cross-examination, this witness states that in fact he was only given four packets. According to his statement the other four packets were in Kothi and he did not open the same, as the same was sealed and entry in the Malkhana Register has been made on the basis of the memo sent to him, and not by actually counting. In fact, he was only given four packets. According to his statement the other four packets were in Kothi and he did not open the same, as the same was sealed and entry in the Malkhana Register has been made on the basis of the memo sent to him, and not by actually counting. In fact, he was only given four packets. This statement of the Malkhana Incharge shows the state of affairs in which the investigation has cared for the samples. The callousness of the prosecution does not end here. According to the I.O. Shetan Singh, PW 8, on 5.5.1994 at 9.15 he lodged the FIR and at that time the deposits were made at the Malkhana. A reading of the entry in Malkhana Register shows that it was at 8.15 when the deposits were made. If the time is 8.15, then it could not be a.m., and it has to be p.m. This entry was put to the Public Prosecutor, and after seeing, she says that it is p.m. To check the veracity of the prosecution case, statement of PW 6 Harish Chandra was read, who has not spoken as to what was the time when he made this entry in Ex. D/1. Therefore, there is a confusion about the time of deposit. The best course is that it can be taken as to be 8.15 p.m. because, it could not have been 8.15 a.m. and if it is taken as 8.15 p.m. then, where these samples remained from 9.15 a.m. to 8.15 p.m. is not clear. It creates a genuine doubt about the sanctity of seals of these articles. Their intactness has not been spoken for this period. Therefore, the link is broken and the very basis of the conviction is subject to suspicion. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the charges Under section 8/18 of the Act and the sentence passed against is set aside. He is in Jail. He should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******