Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under S. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a default clause. 2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that appellant-accused was found in possession of 160 gms. of ganja when the person of him was searched by P.W. 6 who was the then Circle Inspector of Police Fort Police Station, Trivandrum. The offence was alleged to be committed on 5-5-1994 at 4 p.m. When the police party consisting of P.Ws. 7, 4 and 5 was patrolling the area they found the appellant with a packet in his hand. Entertaining suspicion. P.W. 7 got down from the jeep and went near to the accused-appellant. On questioning him it was revealed that the packet he was holding in his hand contained ganja. That fact was immediately informed by P.W. 7 to his immediate superior officer (P.W. 6). P.W. 6 conducted search of the person of the accused-appellant and he was found in possession of 160 gms. of ganja in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. Thus, it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant-accused committed offence punishable under S. 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. 3. To connect the appellant with the crime alleged prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. P.W. 1 is an eye-witness to the occurrence examined by the prosecution to prove the fact of seizure of forbidden article from the possession of the appellant. P.W. 2 weighed the contraband seized from the possession of the appellant. P.W. 3 is the Chemical Examiner who proved Ext. P3 Chemical Examination report wherein it is stated that the samples sent for analysis from the Court were found to contain genuine ganja. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were policemen who were on patrol duty along with P.W. 7. 4. P.W. 2 weighed the contraband seized from the possession of the appellant. P.W. 3 is the Chemical Examiner who proved Ext. P3 Chemical Examination report wherein it is stated that the samples sent for analysis from the Court were found to contain genuine ganja. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were policemen who were on patrol duty along with P.W. 7. 4. Assailing the conviction learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended before me that the prosecution has no case about compliance of mandatory requirement of S. 50 of the NDPS Act and as there is violation of the mandatory provisions of S. 50 of the NDPS Act on the ground that seizure of contraband was made on conducting search of person of accused-appellant the conviction is not sustainable and the appellant is to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded before me that though it is the case of the prosecution that search of the person of accused-appellant was conducted and the contraband was seized from him on conducting search of his person there is no case for the prosecution that there was compliance of mandatory requirements of S. 50 of the NDPS Act. 6. The question that is to be considered in this appeal is whether the conviction of the accused-appellant is sustainable on the ground of non-compliance of S. 50 of the NDPS Act. 7. Even if the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses on the aspect of seizure of contraband is accepted as gospel truth conviction cannot be sustained on the ground that appellant-accused was not told about his valuable right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as mandated by S. 50 of the NDPS Act. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution (P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 to 7) spoke about the fact of informing the appellant about his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate by the searching officer (P.W. 6 conducted search of the person of the appellant). None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution (P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 to 7) spoke about the fact of informing the appellant about his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate by the searching officer (P.W. 6 conducted search of the person of the appellant). Evidence given by P.W. 7 is to the effect that while on patrol duty on the fateful day the appellant-accused was seen standing with a packet in his hand at the place described as scene spot in the seizure mahazar and on seeing the police party he made an attempt to conceal the packet in his hand (evidence shows that that packet was seized by P.W. 6 and it contained 150 gms. of contraband). Appellant-accused was stopped by him. According to P.W. 7 when he was about to search the person of the appellant it was disclosed to him by the appellant himself that packet held by him in his hand is ganja and he also possessed another 10 packets of contraband. He immediately informed P.W. 6, who is his superior officer, P.W. 6 arrived at the scene spot and conducted search of the person of the appellant and seized a big packet containing contraband and also 10 small packets (it is in evidence that packet found to be holding in his hand weighed 150 gms. and each small packet weighed one gram. each). Eye-witnesses account regarding seizure of contraband from the possession of appellant is silent on the aspect of compliance of S. 50 and it is clear from the evidence produced by prosecution (evidence given by Searching Officer) that seizure was made when search of the person of accused-appellant was conducted by him. So I have to hold that the conviction is not sustainable on the ground of total dearth of evidence to prove compliance of mandatory requirement of S. 50. It is unfortunate and rather distressing and disturbing to note that the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge side-stepped or conveniently overlooked to record a finding of guilt the vital fact that the right given to the accused to be searched his person in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer is blantantly violated. That is the bizarre aspect of the case. That is the bizarre aspect of the case. It is too much to assume that learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge is unaware of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 SCC (Cri) 634 : (1994 Cri LJ 3702) leying down that compliance of S. 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the search and seizure made. If the learned Judge is really not aware of that well settled legal principle I can only say that it reflects sadly on him. It must be presumed that prejudice has been caused to appellant-accused due to non-compliance. 8. As the prosecution failed to prove compliance of S. 50 of the NDPS Act, which is mandatory, the course open to this Court is to acquit the appellant. In the result, appeal is allowed acquitting the appellant of the charge levelled against him. Release the appellant-accused forthwith, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed.