JUDGMENT R.L.Khurana, J. (Oral) :- The State of Himachal Pradesh has directed the present revision petition against the order dated 6.7.1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, whereby the respondent Nachhattar Singh, was discharged of the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). 2. The prosecution story briefly may be stated thus. On 22.3.1986, Sub Inspector, Daulat Ram, the then S.H.O. of Police Station, Amb, alongwith certain other police officials was on patrol duty and were proceeding on the road leading to Dera Baba Barbagh Singh, Nehri. When the police party reached near Patwarkhana, the respondent tried to slip away on seeing the police party. He was accordingly apprehended and during the course of his personal search 60 gms. of opium was recovered from his pocket. The opium so recovered was, seized and taken in possession after taking out 5 gms thereof separately as sample. On the basis of the report sent to the police station, a case under Section 9 of the Opium Act came to be registered. After necessary investigation, the respondent was charge-sheeted and sent up for trial for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act, before the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amb. Later on, a supplementary challan was put up by the investigating agency on the ground that the offence under section 18 of the NDPS Act was made out and that the Opium Act stood repealed on and with effect from the date of coming into force of the NDPS Act. The learned Magistrate, upon presentation of such supplementary challan committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions at Una, since all the offences under the NDPS Act were triable by a court of Sessions. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the material placed on record, came to the conclusion that apart from non-compliance with certain other provisions of law, there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires that before a person sought to be searched, he is to be given an option whether he would like to be searched in the presence oi a gazetted officer or a magistrate. 4. It is well settled proposition that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and the non-compliance thereof is fatal to the prosecution case. 5. 4. It is well settled proposition that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and the non-compliance thereof is fatal to the prosecution case. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General, while assailing the impugned order, by placing reliance o the ratio laid down by the Honble apex court in the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pirthi Chand & Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 977), has contended that the question as to the compliance or non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is to be considered after affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the compliance of such mandatory provisions and in the absence of such compliance to explain the reasons therefor. 6. In the case, relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Honble apex court had quashed the orders of this court passed in the exercise of the inherent powers, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby the prosecution of the respondent therein for an offence under the NDPS Act was quashed on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 7. On the ratio laid down by the apex court, even if it be held that the impugned order discharging the respondent cannot be sustained, it is significant to note that the case pertains to the year 1986. The impugned order was passed on 6.7.1987. The quantum of opium alleged to have been recovered from the respondent is only 60 gms, which cannot, in any manner, be said to be a huge quantity. About 11 years have passed since then. Therefore, it would not be a fit case to remit for trial at this stage. On this point, we are fortified by the ratio laid down by the Honble apex court in Pirthi Chands case (supra). 8. With the above observations, the present petition stands disposed to accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand cancelled and discharged. -