JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant u/s 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "N.D.P.S. Act") for possessing 26 K. Gs. of Ganja powder and sentencing him there under to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months passed by the learned second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. 2. The prosecution cause in brief is that on 20.6.1990 the Sub-1 Inspector of Excise (P.W. 2) along with some other witnesses while doing patrol duty at Goilundi bus stand, Berhampur town, found the accused carrying a gunny bag on his head and was going towards the bus-stand. Out of suspicions, he detained him, gave his identity and enquired about the contents of the bag, to which the accused fumbled. Then he asked the accused to go to the nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, before whom he is to be searched; but he refused. On his refusal, the officer in presence of the witnesses searched and recovered 26 K. Gs. of Ganja kept in the gunny bag. He drew sample of Ganja powder from the bag and prepared two packets keeping 50 Garms of Ganja each, tied and sealed them with his brass seal and obtained the signatures of the witnesses and the accused on the paper slips. He seized the Ganja and prepared the seizure list. The accused was arrested and produced before the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur along with the seized articles on the same day. The sample was sent for chemical analysis and as per the report, it was found that the sample was Ganja. The plea of the accused was of complete denial. 3. Two witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. P.W. 1 is one Satyabadi Rout, an independent witness who was a petty contractor waiting at the bus-stand for the arrival of his labourers. P.W. 1 testified that the accused was coming with the gunny bag near the bus-stand when the Excise Staff asked about the contents thereof but he did not disclose the contents and fumbled. P.W. 1 is one Satyabadi Rout, an independent witness who was a petty contractor waiting at the bus-stand for the arrival of his labourers. P.W. 1 testified that the accused was coming with the gunny bag near the bus-stand when the Excise Staff asked about the contents thereof but he did not disclose the contents and fumbled. He had further testified that the Excise staff asked him to take to the nearest Magistrate or his higher officer for the purpose of search, to which the accused replied that he will not go anywhere. He stated about the testing of the contents, seizure of the ganja powder, sealing the same in the packets and sealing of the seized gunny bag and preparation of seizure list. In cross-examination, nothing substantial has been brought by way of contradiction. P. W 2 is the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Intelligence Bureau, Berhampur who has given a detailed report about the action taken and having given an option to the accused for the search in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, when the accused refused, he searched the bag in presence of the witnesses and found that the bag has containing 26 K. Gs. of Ganja. He tested it by burning and also by small and due to his experience in the Department, he found that the contents were nothing but ganja powder. This witness has also been cross-examined extensively but no substantial contradiction has been brought out to discard his testimony. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the materials on record, recorded a finding of guilt against the accused-appellant. The present appeal is against the order of conviction and sentence. 4. The main thrust of argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the officer who made the search, seizure and arrested the accused has himself investigated into the case and, therefore, the investigation is bad and consequently, the conviction and sentence is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The second submission of the learned Counsel is that the prosecution having failed to comply with the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the N.D:P.S. Act by not producing him before the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station and the seized materials soon after the seizure, the seizure made was illegal and therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the Officer before search and seizure has not given option to the accused-appellant in terms of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act to give his consent for search either before the Gazetted Officer of the Magistrate and the provisions of Section 50 being mandatory, non-compliance thereof vitiates the trial. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the requirement of Section 57 of the Act having not been complied with by producing the accused before the Magistrate within 48 hours, the investigation as well as the trial is vitiated. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel that the investigation is vitiated because of the fact that the Officer who effected search and seizure having conducted investigation of the case, has to be rejected outright. There is not bar in the statute that any Officer conducting search and seizure is not to investigate the case even though he is an empowered officer. The law is well settled that the Officer conducting search and seizure, if he does not happen to be the empowered officer under the N.D.P.S. Act, has to make a report to the empowered officer for proceeding with the investigation thereafter, but the provision of the Act does not prohibit an Officer conducting the search and seizure to conduct further investigation of the case even though he is the authorised and empowered officer to investigate into a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. A reference may be made to the case of Noor Allam v. State of Orissa: (1996) 11 OCR 543 where a view has been taken that there is no illegality in the investigation conducted by the Officer conducting the search and seizure, if no prejudice is shown. A further reference may be made to the decision in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh: (1994) 7 OCR 283, AIR 1994 SC 1972, wherein the Apex Court has held that if during search or arrest there is chance of recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, then the police officer, who is not empowered, should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. 6. In that view of the matter, there can be no manner of doubt that an officer, conducting search and seizure, if he finds that the case would be one under the N.D.P.S. Act, he can proceed with the further investigation complying with the requirements of the N.D.P.S. Act thereafter if he happens to be the authorised or empowered officer. But only when, such officer is not the empowered officer under the Act to conduct investigation then he shall have to inform the empowered officer under the Act to proceed with the further investigation. The contention of the learned Counsel therefore has no force. 7. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that the Officer having seized the materials and not having produced before the Officer?in-charge of the Police station, the seizure and the investigation there under is vitiated in law. This contention has also to be rejected at the threshold since it is in the evidence that on the date the articles were seized, the accused along with the seized articles was produced before the learned S.D.J.M on 20.6.1990, inasmuch as, he intimated the Inspector regarding the search and seizure made in the case. In that view of the matter, the contention that the articles are to be produced before the Officer-in-charge of the Police station is of no avail. 8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the action of the investigating officer in simply asking the accused orally to come to a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer for the proposed search, would not be in compliance with the provision u/s 50 of the Act, unless it is given to the accused in writing is of no substance. It is the evidence that P.W. 2 in presence of P.W. 1, an independent witness asked the accused-appellant that he is to be searched and whether he would like to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but the accused refused to be searched. The statement of P.W. 2 that the accused was given option, has not been confronted. No suggestion has been made to this witness that no option was given to the accused in terms of Section 50 of the Act. 9. The statement of P.W. 2 that the accused was given option, has not been confronted. No suggestion has been made to this witness that no option was given to the accused in terms of Section 50 of the Act. 9. In that view of he matter, the contention of the learned Counsel with regard to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act is of no substance and has to be rejected. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has properly dealt with the materials on record and on proper appreciation of evidence and after carefully examining the same, has recorded his findings holding the Appellant guilty. I do not find any cogent reason to take a different view nor any other ground is urged before me to take a contrary view and, therefore, the appeal has to fail and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence is affirmed. Final Result : Dismissed