Judgment :- This revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 7393 of 1987 of the file of the XVI M.N., Geroge Town, Madras. This revision petitioner/accused was tried for an offence under Section 20(b)(1) of Narcotic Drugs & amp; Sychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act, for the purpose of convenience) 2. In the said case, the learned Trial Judge found that accused guilty of the offence alleged against her and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for six months 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused filed an appeal which was taken on file in C.A. No. 95/88 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Madras who after hearing the case, dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence as enforced by the learned Magistrate 4. A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of this case and they are as hereunder :- On 6-12-1986, at about 7.00 a.m. in the junction of Narayanappa Street and M.U.C. Road, Madras, the accused was found with red & amp; white cloth bag. P.W. 3 John Bose, who was on his routine search found the accused as stated above with the white and red cloth bag is marked as M.O. 1 in the case. On suspicion be checked the bag and found it to contain 150 gm. of ganja marked as Ex. M.O. 2 (Series) in this case. The ganja was recovered under Mahazar Ex. P. 2 attested by P.W. 2. P.W. 1 chemical analyst has been examined in this case to prove that the contraband seized from the custody of the accused is ganja. On these facts as stated above, the Courts below found the accused guilty 5. I heard Mr. T. Sudanthiram, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran Govt. Advocate on the Crl. side for the State 6. Mr. T. Sudanthiram, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his case mainly on two legal grounds. He fairly conceded that these two legal grounds were not raised at any time when the case was pending before the Courts below. However, according to him, since the legal ground raised by him would go to the root of the matter, he may be permitted to raise them at this stage. In fact, Mr. Sudanthiram did not trouble me by going into the merits of the case. However, according to him, since the legal ground raised by him would go to the root of the matter, he may be permitted to raise them at this stage. In fact, Mr. Sudanthiram did not trouble me by going into the merits of the case. He confirned his arguments only with reference to the said two legal grounds. Per contra, Mr. Babu Muthu Meera, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) would urge that those two legal grounds, having not been taken before the Courts below, should not be allowed to be raised for the first time here. He would also state that on the day when the search and seizure was made, no officer was empowered under the Act to investigate the offence under that Act. The two questions being pure questions of law, and there being no scope for further evidence as the question could be decided on the available evidence. I allowed the points to be put forward 7. On the rival contentions of the parties, the only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether P.W. 3 is a competent person under the Act to search and seize and if the answer is in the affirnative, then nothing survives in this revision and on the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then the entire proceedings stands vitiated 8. Mr. T. Sudanthiram referred me to Sections 41, 42 and 50 of the Act. The relevant sections for the purpose of deciding this case will be only 41(2) and 50. A reading of Section 41(2) clearly mentions that only those categories of officers who are mentioned in that sub-section shall be the competent persons to commence the investigation and to proceed with it. Under that sub-section the appropriate Government viz., the Central Government or the State Government is empowered to notify by general order or special order any category of officer who can exercise the power under the Act. This section, according to Mr. T. Sundanthiram, is mandatory and was held to be so not only by judgments of this Court but also by judgments of the Supreme Court. This section, according to Mr. T. Sundanthiram, is mandatory and was held to be so not only by judgments of this Court but also by judgments of the Supreme Court. He would then refer me to Section 50 of the said Act which also cause a legal duty on the part of the person who is empowered to search, to keep the person, involved in the offence, informed that he has a right to be searched, it he requires, in the presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. These two issues put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been upheld by the decisions of this Court and the decisions of the Supreme Court 9. In the decision reported in Sivakumar alias Kumar alias Sugumar In. re, 1989 Mad LW (Crl) 65 Arunachalam, J., had clearly held that the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 are mandatory. This view taken by Arunachalam, J., had been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh. The Supreme Court in that case held that the requirements of Sections 41 and 42 are mandatory and compliance of this is a must Section 50 of the Act was also held to be mandatory. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision reported in Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala. 10. On the facts of this case, it is clear that P.W. 3 is not specially empowered under Section 41(2) of the Act. Not only that, there is nothing on record to show that P.W. 3 had informed the accused of his right to be searched and examined in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as mentioned under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore, both on these legal grounds the revision will succeed, as these two legal grounds go to the root of the matter and they vitiate the entire trial and conviction. 11. In the result, both the legal contentions raised by Mr. Therefore, both on these legal grounds the revision will succeed, as these two legal grounds go to the root of the matter and they vitiate the entire trial and conviction. 11. In the result, both the legal contentions raised by Mr. T. Sudanthiram as referred to above, are accepted in toto and the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/revision petitioner by the judgment dated 10-5-1988 in C.C. No. 7393/87 on the file of the XVI M. M. Geroge Town, Madras and as confrmed by the judgment dated 21-9-1988 in C.A. No. 95/88 on the file of the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Madras is here by set aside. The accused in acquitted of the offence alleged.