JUDGMENT S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 30th June, 1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar in Special Case No. 18/96. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act') and has been sentenced to R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). It has also been provided that if the appellant does not deposit the amount of fine, he shall suffer further three months R.I. 3. The prosecution case was that on 23.3.1996, the appellant was travelling in a Truck bearing registration No. MP-23D/8237. He had an air bag in his hand which was contained 13 (Thirteen) kilograms of 'Ganja'. The Police Sub-Inspector, Shri R.S. Patel who was incharge of the Police Station Tongpal, District Bastar had received information to the effect that the appellant was in the process of carrying contraband goods in the aforesaid Truck. The Truck was going from Jagdalpur to Raipur. At the relevant time, the Police Sub-Inspector, Shri R.S. Patel was required to go to Mudai fare for its management. Therefore, A.S.I. Sahu, Head Constable No. 50487 and Constable No. 673 went to the Truck near the Tahakwada Bridge. It is stated that the Truck was stopped and brought to the Police Station. It was the case of the prosecution that the Police party then awaited the arrival of A.S.P. However, the A.S.P. was also out of headquarters, and therefore, the Station House Officer Shri R.S. Patel made a search of air bag, which the appellant was carrying, in presence of Sunil Kumar Pandey and Milauram Yadav. This search was made after giving the notice to the appellant and taking his consent. The air bag of the appellant contained with three polythene packets of thirteen kilograms Ganja worth Rs. 13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand). Out of that Ganja, a part of hundred grams Ganja was taken out and was sealed and then sent for chemical examination. The Panchnama for rest of the part was made after burning a smell quantity of the seized goods and smelling it for finding out if it was Ganja. 13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand). Out of that Ganja, a part of hundred grams Ganja was taken out and was sealed and then sent for chemical examination. The Panchnama for rest of the part was made after burning a smell quantity of the seized goods and smelling it for finding out if it was Ganja. Thereafter, when the chemical examiner reported by Ex.P-14 that the packets sent by the Police contained Ganja, a prosecution was launched against the appellant for carrying contraband Ganja under Section 20(b)(1) of 'the Act'. 4. The appellant denied his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated. 5. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the prosecution and examining the appellant came to the conclusion that the appellant was carrying thirteen kilograms of Ganja. As to compliance of Section 50(1) of the Act', the trial Court seems to have found that the appellant was inforced by the P-2, Shri R.S. Patel regarding his right to required him to be searched before a 'Gazetted Officer'. The trial Court found that Magistrate was not mentioned by Shri R.S. Patel PW-2 either in writing or orally. However, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(1) of 'the Act' and passed the sentence as already stated. It appears that the trial Court held that there was no necessity to comply with Section 50(1) of 'the Act' as the goods were seized from the bag of the appellant. Further it appears to this Court that the trial Court held that partial compliance was sufficient. 6. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court wrongly held that under the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 50(1) of 'the Act' need not be complied with. It was also argued that the halting finding that there was sufficient compliance of Section 50(1) of the Act' is not correct. He argued that appellant had right to be informed if he so chose, he could insist that search may be made by the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the department mentioned in Section 42 of the Act' or nearest Magistrate. 7. Learned Dy. He argued that appellant had right to be informed if he so chose, he could insist that search may be made by the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the department mentioned in Section 42 of the Act' or nearest Magistrate. 7. Learned Dy. Government Advocate for the respondent/State, however, argued that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is supported by the decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Ramji Dude Makwana vs. The State of Maharashtra 1994 Cri.L.J. 1987, and of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dayal vs. Central Narcotics Bureau, Gwalior 1993 J.L.J. 24. Learned Dy. Govt. Adv. for the State further argued that the search was not made from the person or any premises of the accused/appellant but from the air bag which was being carried by the appellant and in such circumstances, a compliance of Section 50(1) of the 'the Act' is not necessary. 8. The facts, established in evidence show that the appellant was stopped when he was going from Jagdalpur to Raipur in a Truck. That is to say, he was in transit. After stopping the Truck, it was brought to police station where the person of the appellant was searched after he was detained. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the appellant was equally covered by Section 43(a) of 'the Act' or by Section 43(b) of 'the Act'. The search and seizure was made at the 'public place'. That is so because a 'Police Station' is a 'public place', as is clear from the explanation appended to Section 43 of the Act'. Section 43(b) of the Act' shall also cover the case of the appellant because he was detained and his person was searched for finding out if he was carrying any contraband goods. He was arrested thereafter, when three polythene packets contained thirteen kilograms of Ganja appeared to be in his possession. Thus, Section 43 of the Act' in clearly attracted. 9. Once it is held, that search and seizure of the goods were made in exercise of powers under section 43 of the Act', Section 50(1) of the Act' becomes operative. He was arrested thereafter, when three polythene packets contained thirteen kilograms of Ganja appeared to be in his possession. Thus, Section 43 of the Act' in clearly attracted. 9. Once it is held, that search and seizure of the goods were made in exercise of powers under section 43 of the Act', Section 50(1) of the Act' becomes operative. It is, therefore, necessary to reproduce Section 50 of the Act' in its entire- Sec. 50 - Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted - (1) When any officer duly authorise under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41. Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female." It is clear from Section 50(1) of the Act', that where a search of a person is made by an officer without a search warrant as provided in Section 42 of the Act' in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 41, 42 or 43 or the Act', he must give an opportunity to the accused is he requires, to the effect that search and seizure are made before the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of 'the Act' or before the nearest Magistrate. Formerly, there was legal controversy regarding the manner of compliance of Section 50(1) of 'the Act'. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1872, has firmly held that the compliance of Section 50(1) of 'the Act' is mandatory on the part of the investigating agency and it cannot take shelter behind the plea that the accused did not require it to comply with Section 50(1) of the Act'. Balbir Singh, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1872, has firmly held that the compliance of Section 50(1) of 'the Act' is mandatory on the part of the investigating agency and it cannot take shelter behind the plea that the accused did not require it to comply with Section 50(1) of the Act'. It is, therefore, necessary to determine if investigating officer can get away by saying that he had asked the accused if he wanted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. The evidence on record shows that the notice, Ex.P-1 is in Hindi. The trial Court had noted that Sunil Kumar Pandey PW-1, the seizure witness, who was travelling with the appellant/accused from Kooknar, admitted that the appellant could not speak Hindi, but understood it. Taking note of the fact that the appellant is resident of Indrarang, P.S. Bedombe, District Cuttack in Orissa, if cannot be presumed that the appellant had sufficient knowledge of Hindi script so that he could read it. For this reason, the notice, Ex.P-1 is held to be of no consequence. That apart, Ex.P-1 only says if the appellant be searched by the investigating officer or by any other Gazetted Officer. The oral evidence of PW-2, Shri R.S. Patel is also to the effect that he had asked the appellant to be searched by him or any other Gazetted Officer. His evidence is supported by Sunil Kumar Pandey. PW-1 to the effect that the appellant was asked if he wanted if search be made by the investigating officer or by any other Gazetted Officer. It is significant that appellant was not told that he could require the investigating officer make search and seizure before the nearest Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act'. In the opinion of this Court, there was no compliance of Section 50(1) of 'the Act' in this case. The omission to mention "Magistrate" in Ex.P-1, the notice does not meet the requirement of Section 50(1) of the Act' Even otherwise mentioning 'any other Gazetted Officer" is not enough. It is necessary to specify the nearest Gazetted Officer of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act'. It is settled rule of interpretation that compliance of a particular provision is mandatory, then it should be complied with in that manner and no other. It is necessary to specify the nearest Gazetted Officer of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act'. It is settled rule of interpretation that compliance of a particular provision is mandatory, then it should be complied with in that manner and no other. However, it cannot be argued in this case that there is lumping of mandatory, and directory requirements in Section 50(1) of the Act'. The Supreme Court has already held that information to the accused is a must that he has a right to require compliance of search before the authorities mentioned therein. The provision is mandatory. Can it be claimed that when if a partial information is given to the accused. Section 50(1) of the Act' is complied with it ? In other words it should be held that the compliance of Section 50(1) of the Act' is mandatory but the manner of its compliance is of not. However, Section 50(3) of the Act' makes it clear that compliance of Section 50(1) of the Act' is mandatory in every other detail. Section 50(1) of the Act' gives right to choice to the accused to be searched by any of the officer mentioned in Section 42 of the Act' so that he may desire benefit of Section 50(3) of the Act'. His choice cannot be curtailed or whittled down by the investigating agency. The accused has a right of immediate discharge under Section 50(3) 'the Act' by the officers named in Section 50(1) of 'the Act'. If there was reasonable ground for search under Section 43 of 'the Act' the accused was liable to be detained and taken to the officer or Magistrate if he so required. By omitting nearest Magistrate and saying that search be made by any other Gazetted Officer, the appellant was not informed that the concerned officer could discharge him at the spot. It is not possible to know what was meant by the investigating officer. The Gazetted Officers are galore. It is only one of the nearest Gazetted Officer, mentioned in Section 50(1) of 'the Act' i.e. Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act' or the nearest Magistrate had a right to discharge the appellant without any search if there be no reasonable ground for making a search. The Gazetted Officers are galore. It is only one of the nearest Gazetted Officer, mentioned in Section 50(1) of 'the Act' i.e. Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act' or the nearest Magistrate had a right to discharge the appellant without any search if there be no reasonable ground for making a search. If the appellant/accused was brought before any other Gazetted Officer, he could not have exercised his power to discharge the accused even if he was convinced that there was no reasonable ground for making a search. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was non-compliance of Section 50(1) of 'the Act'. 10. It appears to this Court that the trial Court was wrong in holding that Section 50(1) of 'the Act' was not applicable on the ground that the person of the appellant was not searched. When a person is carrying a bag and investigating officer is about to make a search of contraband drug or substance, it cannot be said that the person of accused would not be searched. It cannot be predicated if the accused is hiding the drug on his person. Therefore, the investigating officer making a search cannot take the risk of not informing the accused about his right provided by Section 50(1) of 'the Act'. Even otherwise, it would be impossible to search a bag carried by an accused person without touching his body especially when he resists it. In effect a bag carried by a person is extention of his body even if we take a narrow view of word a person in Section 50(1) of 'the Act'. However, it appears to this Court that the proper view should be that search of a person must be deemed to be search of any article in his possession when the search is made. The view of this Court is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa Vs. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 244. The facts of this case reveal that appellant was found in the first class waiting room of Dullon Railway Station. The accused took out small packet of Charas from the bag on questioning. On further questioning and search, six packets were recovered from his bag by PW-6, Ashok Kumar. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 244. The facts of this case reveal that appellant was found in the first class waiting room of Dullon Railway Station. The accused took out small packet of Charas from the bag on questioning. On further questioning and search, six packets were recovered from his bag by PW-6, Ashok Kumar. Thus, all in all 780 grams of Charas was found in his possession. The Apex Court followed its decision in the case of State of Punjab (Supra) and held that non-compliance of Section 50(1) of 'the Act' was fatal. Therefore, view of Bombay High Court in Ramji Duda Makwana's case (Supra) cannot be accepted. The decision of Full Bench of this Court in Ram Dayal's case, (Supra) was not required to consider the question directly that arises in this case. In that case too, It appears that the view was taken that recovery from a vehicle or from the luggage would not be deemed to be recovery from the person of the accused. However, it is not clear from the opinion if their lordships implied that by words search from the vehicle or luggage of the accused their lordships meant search made in absence of the accused or in his presence. If the luggage or the vehicle belonged to the accused and he was present at the time of search, there is no reason to hold that search was not made from his person. It would be misinterpretation of Section 50(1) of 'the Act' to construe it in such a narrow and legalistic manner. The search of person must include search of his belongings. This should be so, for the reason, that Section 50(1) of 'the Act' is not meant for protecting the innocent person from personal search only. It is meant to protect a person from detention and arrest if he is able to prove to the satisfaction of one of the officers mentioned in Section 42 of 'the Act' or the nearest Magistrate before whom he is produced that there is nothing to search and obtain a discharge as per Section 50(3) of 'the Act'. It is apparent that if luggage, vehicle or premises belonging to the accused are searched behind his back. Section 50(1) of 'the Act' did not apply because he is not under immediate threat of arrest or detention. It is apparent that if luggage, vehicle or premises belonging to the accused are searched behind his back. Section 50(1) of 'the Act' did not apply because he is not under immediate threat of arrest or detention. However, this Court confines its view to question that arises in the case and holds that the words of Section 50(1) of 'the Act' complying search of a person are wide enough to cover a search made from the bag of accused carried by him. The view of this Court finds support from a decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Amerjit Singh and another vs. State (Delhi & Admn.) 1995 (1) Crimes 777. The view of the Supreme Court in Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa's case (supra), is binding on this Court and, therefore, it is not necessary to dwell on the matter any further. 11. In view of this matter, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was sufficient time with investigating officer to comply With Section 50(1) of 'the Act'. The appellant/accused was not resident of State of Madhya Pradesh. He belonged to Orissa State. The evidence of Sunil Kumar Pandey, PW-1 is that appellant could not speak Hindi but he understood it. It cannot be said if he understood the words like. The appellant was strange place in a Police Station. He was not told about his right to have him searched through Magistrate. The appellant was then prejudiced in his trial. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that non-compliance of Section 50(1) of 'the Act' was fatal. 12. The result of the discussion aforesaid is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant is entitled to be acquitted and is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(1) of the Act'. He be set at liberty forthwith. The fine amount if deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Appeal allowed