JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment and sentence of the Special Court, N.D.P.S., Thanjavur, dated 12.10.1994 made in C.C.66 of 1994 convicting the appellants under Sec.20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act and imposing a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment for A-1 apart from a fine of Rs.3,000 and in default to pay fine, to undergo a further period of imprisonment of 12 months, sentencing the second and the third appellants to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment apart from a fine amount of Rs.1,000 and in default to pay fine, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 25.3.1993 around 12.10 p.m., P.W.4 received an information as recorded in Ex.P-4 to the effect that ganja was being sold in large quantities at the behest of one lady Mayakka in the premises situated at hut No.39, Alagappan Street, Kumbakonam along with her associates, that after recording the said information under Ex.P-4, he forwarded it to the higher authority namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIB, CID, Madras, who was camping at Kumbakonam on that day, that under Ex.P-5, the said higher authority namely the D.S.P., NIB, CID, authorised P.W.4 to proceed to the spot immediately, search the place and the persons and to take action by observing legal formalities, that after around 1 o’clock, he went to the All Women Police Station and took P.W.2, a lady constable, along with him and the other parties, that on the way to the premises in question, P.W.1 and Thiru Balraj, two independent persons were also requested to accompany them, who acceded to the request and accompanied the party, that on entering the premises in question, all the three appellants were found inside the house, that A-1 was at that point of time, weighing ganja from a gunny bag in a balance that was available with her and was collecting it on the floor, that A-2 and A-3 were making small packets of ganja from the ganja heaped on the floor, that P.W.4 entered along with the party, that he got himself introduced and informed that he wanted to search the house to take further action, that he also showed the authorisation made in his favour, that A-1 identified herself by stating that her name as Ponnuthayee Ammal alias Mayakka residing at 39, Alagappan Street, Kumbakonam, that A-2 and A-3 also revealed their names as Saminathan and Manoharan, that thereafter, P.W.4 after ascertaining as to whether the first accused would like to get herself searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer to which, she answered in the negative, that thereafter with the assistance of the lady constable P.W.2, P.W.4 weighed the ganja heaped on the floor with the weighing balance available with A-1, that it weighed to the extent of 7,350 kgs, that when the ganja found in another bundle near A-1 was weighed along with the gunny bag, it weighed to the extent of 6.500 kgs, that he took the samples of 50 gms. each from the above said 7,350 kgs. and 6.500 kgs, that he took four such samples from each of those two different stocks of ganja, that when he weighed the ganja which was found in small packets collected in blue colour polythene bags, the same weighed to the extent of 3.500 kgs, that he also took two samples of 50 gms, each from that stock also. It is stated that around 4.30 p.m. after preparing the mahazar Ex.P-2, the accused were arrested and brought to the travellers bungalow where the crime was registered under Sec.8(C) read with Sec.20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also stated that F.I.R. Ex.P-5 was prepared and that a report under Sec.57 in Ex.P-7 was also forwarded to his immediate higher authority. 3. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined while Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. Based on the above stated evidence, the lower Court passed the impugned judgment imposing the sentence on the appellants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants, while attacking the judgment impugned in this appeal, contended that due to the serious violation of non-compliance of Sec.50 of the Act, the case of the prosecution should fail. In fact, that was the main contention raised on behalf of the appellants. The learned counsel after referring to Ex.P-1, the Mahazar, Ex.P-6 F.I.R. and Ex.P-7 the report sent under Sec.57 of the Act and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5, stated that significantly, none of these documents or witnesses speak about the compliance of Sec.50 of the Act. The learned counsel while referring to the evidence of P.W.4 would contend that the reference to compliance of Sec.50 by P. W.4 in the absence of any other supporting evidence cannot be relied upon to hold that there was a strict compliance of Sec.50 of the Act. The learned counsel then contended that the authorising officer who gave Ex.P-5 authorisation was not examined to show that such an authorisation was really issued on that day namely 25.3.1993. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of the examination of the said authority, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P-5, in which event, according to the learned counsel, the case of the prosecution that based on Ex.P-4 the search and seizure was made after obtaining authorisation in Ex.P-5 cannot be believed. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of the examination of the said authority, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P-5, in which event, according to the learned counsel, the case of the prosecution that based on Ex.P-4 the search and seizure was made after obtaining authorisation in Ex.P-5 cannot be believed. The learned counsel also contended that the prosecution did not make any investigation to ascertain as to the ownership of the premises in question wherefrom the ganja was stated to have been seized. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of convincing evidence with regard to the ownership of the premises in question, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. The learned counsel also contended that when P.W.1, the sole independent witness, having turned hostile and in the absence of the evidence of the other independent witness Balraj, by merely relying upon the evidence of the police officials, it cannot be stated that guilt was made out. The learned counsel would contend that when Ex.P-5 refers to the search and seizure of the place and the persons by virtue of application of Sec.6 of the Evidence Act when that constituted the fact in the course of the same transaction, non compliance of Sec.50 would have greater significance and application. The learned counsel also relied upon T.P.razack v. State of Kerala, (1996) S.C.C. (Crl.) 57 and Mohinder Kumar v. The State, Panaji, Goa, 1995 Crl.L.J. 2074 to contend that non-compliance of Sec.50 would vitiate the case of the prosecution. 5. As against the abovesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that in the case on hand when Sec.50 is not attracted inasmuch as the search and seizure was made in respect of the place and not a person, the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants would fall to the ground. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, merely because lady constable was taken along with police party, it cannot be stated that on the basis of the said circumstance, it should be concluded that there was going to be a search on the person namely A-1 and therefore, the compliance of Sec.50 was necessitated. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, merely because lady constable was taken along with police party, it cannot be stated that on the basis of the said circumstance, it should be concluded that there was going to be a search on the person namely A-1 and therefore, the compliance of Sec.50 was necessitated. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, when the information under Ex.P-4 revealed that a lady was trafficking in ganja, by way of precaution, the police party took along with them, the lady constable and therefore, on that sole basis, namely the presence of the lady constable, it cannot be held that irrespective of any search being conducted on the person of A-1, there should have been compliance of Sec.50 of the Act. As regards non-examination of the authorising officer namely the D.S.P. the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Ex.P-5 authorisation was dated 25.5.1993, that the said Ex.P-5 was presented in Court along with other exhibits and material objects on the very same day as is disclosed by the seal of the Magistrate Court found in Ex.P-5. It is therefore contended that when the said Ex.P-5 was filed into the Court on the very same day, there was absolutely no scope for any manipulation taking place in the matter of preparation of Ex.P-5. In such circumstances, it was contended that the examination or non-examination of the authorising officer was totally immaterial. As regards the ownership of the premises in question, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that A-1 never disputed her presence in the premises in question and it was never suggested at her instance that her presence in the premises in question was not proved. 6. After hearing the counsel on either side, I find that as per Ex.P-4, the basic information was that in the premises in question namely at Hut No.39, Alagappan Street, Kumbakonam, A-1 was indulging in the sale of large quantities of ganja along with her associates. That was the definite information which was the starting point for the initiation of the case of the prosecution. That was the definite information which was the starting point for the initiation of the case of the prosecution. Based on the said information having been forwarded to the higher authority, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIB, CID, Madras, who was stated to have camped at Kumbakonam on that day namely 25.3.1993, gave Ex.P-5 authorisation to P.W.4 to proceed to the spot immediately, search the place and also the persons and to take action by observing the legal formalities. Therefore, the primary object while issuing Ex.P-5 authorisation was to hold the search in the place where, as per the information revealed in Ex.P-4, large scale of ganja was being sold at the instance of A-1 along with her associates. The reference to the search of the persons in Ex.P-5 cannot be taken to mean that irrespective of the disclosure of large quantities of ganja found in the premises in question, there should still be a search to be conducted on the persons available therein so as to attract Sec.50 of the Act. In fact, a reading of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 read along with Exs.P-4 and P-5 would sufficiently show that the ganja recovered was from the premises in question and no part of it was recovered from the body of any individuals much less A-1 to A-3. So, in such circumstances, as regards the statement of the version of P.W.4 to the effect that he offered to the appellants to exercise their option to get themselves examined in the presence of Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, I hold that by itself would not lead to the conclusion that compliance of the requirement Sec.50 would become mandatory. In other words, inasmuch as the whole seizure of the contraband was from the place where the accused were found along with it, there was no need or necessity for the officer concerned to conduct the search and seizure on any person and thereby resort to the compliance of Sec.50 of the Act. Admittedly, in the case on hand, inasmuch as, the contraband of ganja was seized from the premises in question namely Hut No.39, Alagappan Street, Kumbakonam, wherein the accused were stated to have been trafficking, there was absolutely no necessity for P.W.4 to make any offer as contemplated under Sec.50 of the Act. Admittedly, in the case on hand, inasmuch as, the contraband of ganja was seized from the premises in question namely Hut No.39, Alagappan Street, Kumbakonam, wherein the accused were stated to have been trafficking, there was absolutely no necessity for P.W.4 to make any offer as contemplated under Sec.50 of the Act. When the compliance of Sec.50 was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the whole contention based on non-compliance of Sec.50 pales into insignificance. 7. As far as the contention based on Sec.6 of the Evidence Act is concerned, as pointed out by me in the beginning itself, merely because in Ex.P-5 there was a reference namely that P.W.4 should proceed immediately to the spot and conduct a search on the place as well as the persons, it cannot be stated that on that basis, it should be construed that search on person would become very relevant so as to detach from the search of the place on the footing that both the facts from part of the same transaction. A reading of the said provision in my opinion has no application to the facts of the case. Having regard to the case of the prosecution launched against the appellants herein there is no scope for contending that the search on the body of the person would become very relevant. In the case on hand, the search on the place and person cannot be stated to be interconnected inasmuch as the whole basis of the case of the prosecution was that A-1 was trafficking in the contraband of ganja in the premises in question. That was the basis for the initiation of the whole case of the prosecution. In fact, based on the said information, when a search was conducted in the premises in question, it turned out that the said information received under Ex.P-4 was true. When the presence of contraband of ganja in so much quantity namely to the tune of 17.350 kgs, was found available in the premises in question, there was no necessity at all for P.W.2 to carry out any further search on the body of the persons namely, A-1 to A-3. When the presence of contraband of ganja in so much quantity namely to the tune of 17.350 kgs, was found available in the premises in question, there was no necessity at all for P.W.2 to carry out any further search on the body of the persons namely, A-1 to A-3. Therefore, the said fact that A-1 to A-3 were present with the contraband of ganja lying on the floor and in the gunny bags did not ipso facto create any situation for carrying out a search on the body of A-1 to A-3 and such being the position, it cannot be said that the necessity of carrying out a search on the body of A-1 to A-3 was connected with the contraband seized from the premises in question. In the absence of any scope for carrying out a search on the body of a person, the only conclusion could be that such a situation cannot even be remotely connected to the fact that in an issue namely the search and seizure made from the premises in question. Therefore, as held by me, Sec.6 is not at all attracted to the facts of this case. 8. Therefore, having regard to my conclusion that Sec.50 is not attracted to the facts of this case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants have no application to the facts of this case. As regards the judgment reported in Mohinder Kumar v. The State, Panaji, Goa, 1995 Crl.L.J. 2074, the basic fact analysed in that case reveals that the recoveries were made pursuant to the search made on the person of the accused. In the opening paragraph of the said judgment, it is stated to the effect that, “...The person of the accused was searched and two pieces of charas from the right pocket of his pant were recovered weighing about 10 gms. and samples therefrom were also taken....” In those circumstances, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that irrespective of such a personal search carried out on the accused when Sec.50 was not applied, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that circumstance would vitiate the case of the prosecution. In the case on hand, when no search was carried out on the body of any person and no recovery was made thereafter, there is no scope for applying Sec.50 of the Act. In the case on hand, when no search was carried out on the body of any person and no recovery was made thereafter, there is no scope for applying Sec.50 of the Act. As regards the contention based upon the non-examination of the authorising officer as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, when Ex.P-5 authorisation was lodged in Court on the very same day there was absolutely no scope for any manipulation taking place so as to warrant the examination of the said officer. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also not helpful. Similarly, with regard to the ownership of the house, here again, there was no material shown to doubt the case of the prosecution that A-1 was not present on the date of the occurrence in the place in question. Therefore, the said contention also does not merit any consideration. As regards the non-examination of the independent witness, it is true that P.W.1 turned hostile, but the other overwhelming evidence available on record disclosed that the case of the prosecution was conclusively established. There is no circumstance pointed out to show that the version of the other prosecution witnesses was not true. Therefore, merely because the other independent witness was not examined, it cannot be concluded that the single circumstance would belie the case of the prosecution. Looked at from any angle, I am unable to find any lacunae in the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below being justified, there is no scope for interfering with the judgment of the Court below. 9. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Inasmuch as the appeal has been dismissed, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants shall be carried out forthwith.