Judgment Panigrahi, J.: 1. Conviction and sentence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North), whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees One Lakh I.D. to further rigorous imprisonment of one year has been assailed in this appeal. 2. The scenario of the prosecution story as revealed in course of trial is as follows ;- That on 14.9.1997 at about 21.40 hours when A.S.I. M. Rahaman was on duty, he received an anonymous telephonic information that the appellant was selling heroin at the crossing of B. T. Road and Bonhooghly under P. S. Baranagar. Pursuant to the said information, the Duty Officer entered such fact in the G. D. being Entry No. 797 and de facto-complainant C. R. Dirghangi, S.I. informed the matter to the I.C. Baranagar, P. S. The Duty Officer also sent a requisition to the S.D.O. Barrackpore to depute one Executive Magistrate to conduct search in his presence to the appellant. Thereafter, de facto-complainant along with other Officers and force of the P. S. following such information proceeded to the place of incident and they, however, detained the appellant. Meanwhile the Baranagar Officer-in-Charge appeared and he searched the person of the accused in presence of the S. D. P.O., Belghoria and other Officers and also in presence of independent witnesses. On search the reading party had recovered 12 packets of heroin in a sylophene paper inside a matchbox of the appellant and they, accordingly, seized the heroin and prepared seizure lists in presence of the appellant, the witnesses and also the raiding party. The seized articles had been weighed and it was duly levelled and sealed. On weighment it was noticed that it contained 1.600 Milligrams. The appellant was, thereafter, arrested. On 15.9.1997, the appellant along with material objects had been produced before the learned Additional District Judge for sending it to the scientific expert for opinion. After getting the reply from the drug annalist charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. In order to substantiate the charge of the prosecution case, 10 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge was, however, inclined to record that the prosecution was able to bring home the charge to the accused and, accordingly, convicted him under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4 Mr. 3. In order to substantiate the charge of the prosecution case, 10 witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge was, however, inclined to record that the prosecution was able to bring home the charge to the accused and, accordingly, convicted him under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4 Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has strongly contended that in this case the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the recovery of heroin from the possession of the appellant. It has also been submitted that the procedure for search and seizure had been violated by the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that Sections 50 and 52(A) were not applied with. The main thrust of Mr. Mukherjee's argument is that for non-compliance of the provision of Section 50 which mandate the arresting authority to inform the appellant about his right to be searched either in presence of a Gazetted Officer or in presence of a Magistrate, having not followed the total seizure must, therefore, be declared invalid vis-a-vis, the appellant should, therefore, be acquitted of the charges. Before examination of such contention it is necessary to quote Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act, it reads as follows :- "50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted- 1. When any Officer duly authorized under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate; 2. If such requisition is made, the Officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1) ; 3. The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made ; 4. No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female." 5. In support of his submission, he has relied on a judgment reported in (1) 1995 OCR page 315 in the case of Bijoy Kumar Subudhi v. State of Orissa. No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female." 5. In support of his submission, he has relied on a judgment reported in (1) 1995 OCR page 315 in the case of Bijoy Kumar Subudhi v. State of Orissa. Another Special Bench Judgment in (2) 2000 CWN page 373 in the case of ladunandan Roy v. The State of West Bengal, has also been relied on. 6. Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that in this case there is no evidence worth the name that the appellant was informed about his right in terms of Section 50 nor any witness had also testified to that effect. Therefore, as per the rationale of the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. While coming to such conclusion the Full Bench had relied upon the judgment reported in (3) State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh in 1996 (6) Supreme Court Cases page 159, that when an empowered Officer or a duly Authorized Officer acting at a prior information is about to search a person it is imperative on him to inform the concerned person of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. While examining this, it is necessary for us to go - into the evidence of this case. P.W.1 was the Authorized Officer in this case, who conducted search of the accused. In his evidence, he stated that on 14.9.1997 at 21.40 hours, he received an anonymous telephonic information that heroin was being sold at B. T. Road, Bonhooghly crossing. The incident was entered into diary being No.797 dated 14.9.1997. Thereafter, it seems that he had informed it to I.C., Baranagar P. S. and also S.D.P.O., Belghoria. He along with other Officers went to the spot for holding raids. On seeing the police party when the appellant started fleeing away towards Dunlop Bridge, he was intercepted and over powered by the raiding party and was surrounded. Thereafter, it seems that he had informed it to I.C., Baranagar P. S. and also S.D.P.O., Belghoria. He along with other Officers went to the spot for holding raids. On seeing the police party when the appellant started fleeing away towards Dunlop Bridge, he was intercepted and over powered by the raiding party and was surrounded. In the meanwhile, I.C., Baranagar informed the appellant that he was a Gazetted Officer and in his presence the raid was to be conducted or if he desired to be searched in presence of the Magistrate, the appellant could be taken before the Magistrate but, however, the accused opted to be searched by the I.C., Baranagar P.S. Thus, before the search was conducted the accused was informed that it was optional for him to be searched by the I.C., Baranagar P.S. Therefore, in the above con ext it is to be judged whether there was compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Exactly, similar situation had arisen in the case of (4) Joseph Fernandez v. The State of Goa reported in 2000(1) Supreme Court Cases page 707. In this case, the Searching Officer had informed the appellant whether he was inclined to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or by him to whom he opted to be searched before the I.C., Baranagar P.S.. he replied to be searched in presence of I.C., Baranagar. Before such search was conducted I.C., Baranagar was also physically searched by the S.D.P.O. and nothing was found from his possession. I.C. recovered a matchbox from the pocket of the appellant wherefrom he drew out 12 purias of heroin and a cash of Rs. 25/-. 7. After such search and recovery was made P.W. 1 took the appellant to a nearby shop for weighment of those purias and it was found to be 1.600 Milligrams. Thereafter, he was brought to the place of occurrence and the packet was sealed and signed by the witnesses and the seizure list was prepared in presence of the appellant who had signed Oil it. From the cross-examination of P.W. 1 nothing came out to discredit the evidence of P.W.1. 8. P.W.2 was the jeweller who had weighed the purias on being requested by P.W.1. Scathing criticism has been levelled that although Sunday happens to be a holiday how was P.W.2 available in his shop. From the cross-examination of P.W. 1 nothing came out to discredit the evidence of P.W.1. 8. P.W.2 was the jeweller who had weighed the purias on being requested by P.W.1. Scathing criticism has been levelled that although Sunday happens to be a holiday how was P.W.2 available in his shop. It might be possible that the attendant working in the shop might not be available on account of holiday. But, it cannot rule out the possibility of P.W. 2 being present on that day in the shop. 9. P. W. 3 was one of the seizure witnesses supported the recovery of purias but could not identify the person but he has corroborated the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the police took the accused to a jewellery shop where the incriminating materials was weighed and, thereafter, the seizure list was prepered in which he signed. 10. P.W.4, another witness to the seizure fully supported the factum of seizure and recovery from the accused and he has also corroborated the version of P. W. 1. Noting substantial to discredit the testimony of P.W.4 could be brought out by the defence. Therefore, his evidence goes a long way to prove recovery from the possession of the appellant. 11. P. W. 5 was the I. C. of Baranagar P. S. He supported the factum of recovery and also said that the accused was asked whether he would like to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or by him to which he opted to be searched in his presence. Therefore, such statement speaks about sufficient compliance of Section 50. 12. P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have fully supported 1he prosecution story with regard to seizure and recovery merely because they were Police Officers, their testimony, however, can be characterized as interested. Therefore, since they being official witnesses; there is no reason to infer that they were interested to foist a false case against the appellant. 13. The Full Bench Judgment in jadunandan Roy reported in 2000 CWN page 373, is not applicable in this case inasmuch as in that case, the raiding party had not asked the accused about his valuable right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 13. The Full Bench Judgment in jadunandan Roy reported in 2000 CWN page 373, is not applicable in this case inasmuch as in that case, the raiding party had not asked the accused about his valuable right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Therefore, there was an occasion for the Court to hold that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act but in this case since there are plenty of evidence that the accused was informed whether he liked to be searched by the Authorized Officer or by a Magistrate to which he replied that he did not have any objection to be searched by the Authorized Officer, in that event, we think there have been sufficient compliance of Section 50. 14. (5) Baldeb Singh's case reported in 1999 (6) Supreme Court Cases 172, has also no application to the present facts. 15. Next contention has been advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant that since there has been utter infraction of Section 52(A) of the N. D. P. S. Act in not sending the article through Court for chemical examination, therefore, the report, even if, was sent by the chemical annalist does not raise any presumption about its correctness. In support of such plea judgment reported in Ten Abrader Singh v. Narcotic Bluer reported in 2000 (1) CHN, has been relied on. It is true that the judgment supports the contention of Mr. Mukherjee but before applying the said principle now let us advert to the facts proved in this case. It requires that the seized articles after drawing of the samples should be sealed and sent to the analyst. In this case, the recovery was made on 14.9.1997. Immediately, thereafter, the accused as well as the Alamat had been produced on 15.9.1997 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, which was reflected in the first information report. The Additional District and Sessions Judge had also signed in the first information report on 15.9.1997 in token of his acquiescence. An Alamat was sent on the same day in presence of the Additional District Judge which is evident from the forwarding letter sent by the Officer-in-Charge. In this regard, there has been no cross-examination by the defence in the trial Court that it was not sent through Court. An Alamat was sent on the same day in presence of the Additional District Judge which is evident from the forwarding letter sent by the Officer-in-Charge. In this regard, there has been no cross-examination by the defence in the trial Court that it was not sent through Court. In the chemical report sent by the chemical analyst it has appeared that the sample contained heroin. There has been no cross-examination challenging the report of the analyst. 16. Sudipta Moitra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that the compliance of Section 52 only arises in case of disposal of the property. In this case, there has been no such direction either passed by the trial Court or by this Court, the question of compliance of Section 52(A) has, therefore, become academic. We are, of course, not very much impressed upon the submission of Mr. Moitra. The disposal of the article may be during the pendency of the case and/or after its disposal. In this case since the sample had been sent through the Additional District and Sessions Judge, which it is evident from the F.I.R. as well as the forwarding report and, particularly, in the cross-examination in the Trial Court nothing was asked by the defence relating dispatch of Alamat. According to our humble view, the appellant cannot take such question of non-compliance of Section 52(A) for the first time in this Court. 17. From the above conspectus of the case and after elaborate discussion of the evidence we have found that the prosecution has brought home the charge of the case against the accused under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the trial Court's judgment is based on sufficient evidence. We are, therefore, not inclined to allow the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being bereft of merits, it is, therefore, dismissed. Basu, J.: I agree.