Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted u/s. 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 u/s. 20(b)(ii) of the Nartotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (in short the Act). In dafault of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. He has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 u/s. 20(b)(i) of the Act. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Ramnath Singh (P.W.I) who was posted as A.S.I. Mufassil P.S. has stated that he proceeded for raid on 6-1-1997 at 7 A.M. along with armed force consisting of Havildar Nandlal Urao, Constable Narendra Kumar Singh and constable Ramakant Manjhi. The informant along with the police force reached Khairatiya village at about 5 A.M. and received secret information that the appellant Satyendra Pandey who is a member of the gang of note-doubling, has kept illegal Ganja and Charas in his house. The house of the appellant was searched in present of two independent witnesses, namely, Manoj Pandey and Punyadeo Tiwary of Village Khairatiya. It has been further alleged that the informant recovered 500 grams Ganja and 250 grams Charas from the right side Bedi (earthen container) on inner Verandah of the house. No satisfactory explanation was given by the appellant regarding the recovered articles, nor any document was produced. The informant prepared a seizure list in presence of independent witnesses who put their signatures over the same. One copy of the seizure list was also handed over to the appellant who voluntarily put his signature regarding the receipt. On the basis of the written report of the informant case was registered and A.S.I. was entrusted with the investigation. Thereafter charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. On 19-3-1997 cognizance was taken against the appellant. Subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined altogether 7 witnesses including the informant (P.W.I), Ramnath Singh. On 19-3-1997 cognizance was taken against the appellant. Subsequently the trial concluded with the result as stated above. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined altogether 7 witnesses including the informant (P.W.I), Ramnath Singh. P.W.2, Manoj Pandey is a witness of search. P.W.3, Punyadeo Tiwari is also a search witness. P.W.4, Badrinath Sharma, A.S.I, is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W.5, Ranjan Sharma, is a constable. P.W.6, Prakash Kumar, is a formal witness. P.W.7 is Havaldar Nandlal Uraon. 5. P.W.I, Ramnath Singh, A.S.I, is the informant. He has stated that he was posted at Bettiah Muffassil police station. One Brajendra Kumar Shahi was the Officer-in-Charge. On the same date he reached Village-Khairatia along with armed police force in raid in the morning and came to know that appellant, Satyendra Pandey who coubles (currency) noted has kept Charas and Ganja concealed in his house. He has further stated that the house of the appelant was searched in presence of two independent witnesses. The Ganja and Charas were recovered from an earthern Bedi. It was measured and found 250 grams Charas and 500 grams Ganja in quantity. He has further stated that the seizure list was prepared and the signature of the appellant was also obtained. The independent witnesses, namely, Manoj Pandey and Kapildeo Pandey also came as witnesses of the seizure. The seizure list was marked as Ext. l. Thereafter the informant along with the seized articles and the appellant came to the police station and the written report was handed over to the Officer-in-Charge. Other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mm appellant has submitted that Kamnath Singh, A.S.I. (P.W.I) was not authorised to conduct search and seizure under sec. 42 of the Act, as such the search and seizure has been vitiated. He has further submitted that compliance of sec. 50 of the Act has also not been complied with. 7. It is apparent that in this case search was conducted by a party headed by the informant, Ramnath Singh (P.W.l), A.S.I, who was posted at Bettiah Mufassil P.S. According to the provisions of sec. He has further submitted that compliance of sec. 50 of the Act has also not been complied with. 7. It is apparent that in this case search was conducted by a party headed by the informant, Ramnath Singh (P.W.l), A.S.I, who was posted at Bettiah Mufassil P.S. According to the provisions of sec. 42 of the Act only those persons who are duly authorised by the Central or State Government car conduct the search and seizure and seized contraband Narcotic substance. In this regard there is a notification dated 5th September, 1988, S.O. 880. It is very specific and clear that only Officer of the rank and above the rank of Inspector in the Department of Excise or Home Police has been duly authorised to conduct such search under the provisions of sec. 42 of the Act within the area or their respective jurisdiction. Since P.W.I admittedly was below the rank of Inspector and was not authorised to make any search and seizure the whole trial has been vitiated. 8. Accordingly, the judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable and the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is set aside. It has been slated that the appellant is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.