Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred from jail by the two appellants, who were tried before the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act having been charged under sections 20(1) (b) and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellants were caught by the Custom Officers near Kataujha bridge on Sitamarhi-Muzaffarpur P.W.D. Road in the district of Sitamarhi on 25.1.1987 along with 2 kgs. 500 gms Charas. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years each under section 20(1) (b) and 23 of the N.D.P.S.Act. The period already undergone by them in jail custody was set off. 2. It is not necessary to deal with the facts oi the case in detail since this appeal must succeed on short ground that there was no compliance of section 50 of the Act and therefore the conviction of the appellants was illegal. The record of the case does not show that the mandatory provision contained in section 50 was complied by the Custom Officers, who arrested the appellants and seized the contraband articles. It is also startling that the case was instituted 11 months after the arrest of the appellants. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay. 3. In the instant case, the appellants were arrested while they were travelling in a Mini Bus and when they were searched on suspicion, they were found in possession of contraband articles. The contraband articles were recovered from the jacket of the appellants which they were wearing. The appellants were not produced before any Magistrate as required under section 50 of the Act. 4. In Mohinder Kumar V/s. State of Panaji, Goa, 1995 Cr. L.J. 2074, the Supreme Court following the decision in State of Punjab V/s. Balbir Singh (1994)3 S.C.C.299, held that if a police officer without prior information, makes a search and effect the arrest of persons and if during such search he stumbles on a chance recovery of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance and if he happens to be a police officer who is not empowered under the Act to effect search and seizure, he should inform the empowered officer as required by the Act. If he himself happens to be the empowered officer, then from that stage onwards the investigation must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 5. If he himself happens to be the empowered officer, then from that stage onwards the investigation must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 5. The provisions of section 50 are exhaustively construed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Balbir Singh, AIR 1994 S.C. 1872 in which the Supreme Court has made following observations :- "This provision is introduced to avoid any harm to the innocent persons and to avoid raising of allegation of planting or fabrication by the prosecuting authorities. It lays down that if the person to be searched so required, the officer who is about to search him under the provisions of Ss. 41 to 43, shall take such person without any unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in S.42 or to the nearest Magistrate. One of the questions raised is that what meaning is to be given to the words "if the person to be searched so required". Do they cast a duty upon the officer about to make the search to intimate such person that if he so requires he would be taken before the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate for the purpose of making search in their presence or it is for such person to make such a request on his own without being informed by the officer?" 6. In the present case there is no compliance of this provision. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction of the appellants is set aside. They have remained in custody for ten years. They are acquitted of the charges.