ORDER : A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 852-SB of 1986 dated 3-8-1995 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution case briefly stated was that ASI Hans Rai along with HC Ram Phal and five other constables noticed the appellant at about 5.45 p.m. near Devsar Feeder Bridge, Village Kalwas. On seeing the police party the appellant tried to run away but was apprehended. ASI Hans Raj personally searched the body of the appellant and thereafter the bag which he was carrying and found 1½ kgs of opium. He took a sample of 50 gms and attached the rest under a seizure memo and sent the contraband goods to the police station to record the first information report. He sent the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed that it was opium. He was charged under the opium Act. It may here be mentioned that the evidence reveals that the Investigating Officer was not aware of the fact that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act"), had already come into force w.e.f. 14-11-1985. Since the Investigating Officer was not aware of the same he could not be expected to strictly abide by the procedure for the investigation of such offences under the Act. Admittedly, he did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. That is why while granting leave we had stated that reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the decision of this Court reported in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat, 1995(2) R.C.R.(Crl.) 388 : (1995)3 SCC 610 . 2. Admittedly, he did not comply with the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. That is why while granting leave we had stated that reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the decision of this Court reported in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat, 1995(2) R.C.R.(Crl.) 388 : (1995)3 SCC 610 . 2. In the afore-mentioned decision which dealt with the procedural requirements and safeguards of Section 50 of the Act this Court observed that having regard to the grave consequences that may entail on the charge being proved and the strict sentence and heavy fine that may be imposed under the Act, it is essential that the legislative safeguards contained in Section 50 should be scrupulously followed by the Investigating Officer and the right of the accused to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate is an important right which cannot be wished away and must be strictly adhered to. This Court further pointed out that this requirement was mandatory and cast a duty on the Court to ensure that it had been complied with in letter and spirit. In para 10 of the judgment, this Court observed as follows : (SCC p. 616) "10. ... It is necessary, therefore, that courts dealing with offences under the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act should be very careful to see that it is established to their satisfaction that the accused has been informed by the officer concerned that he had a right to choose, to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It need hardly be emphasised that the accused must be made aware of this right or protection granted by the statute and unless cogent evidence is produced to show that he was made aware of such right or protection, there would be no question of presuming that the requirements of Section 50 were complied with." 3. It would thus be seen from the decision of this Court that the decision relied on, to which one of us (Ahmadi, C.J.) was a party, is squarely attracted in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. It would thus be seen from the decision of this Court that the decision relied on, to which one of us (Ahmadi, C.J.) was a party, is squarely attracted in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the trial court as well as the High Court and acquit the accused of the charge levelled against him and order that he be set at liberty at once unless required for any other offence. Appeal allowed.