ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—Criminal Revision Petition No. 974 of 2000 filed under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Petition No. 669 of 2001 filed under Section 482 Code and Criminal Petition are considered together for passing common order. The points of law canvassed being similar, are taken up for passing common order. 2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 974 of 2000 arises out of Special CC No. 1117 of 1999 on the file of the Principal City Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The petition is the 5th accused in the case made an application for discharge. The trial Court by the order dated 17.10.2000 rejected the plea for discharge, holding that there is sufficient material placed against accused No. 5 for framing a charge. The said incriminating material has been considered and discussed in the order dated 14.6.2000 relating to bail application filed by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the revision is filed. 3. In Criminal Petition No. 669 of 2001 the Petitioners are accused 1 to 6 in Special CC No. 24 of 2000 on the file of the Principal City Sessions Judge passed an order for framing of the charge. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings. 4. The Counsel for the Petitioners has challenged the competence of the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau (for short 'NCB') to investigate and file charge sheet. The arguments canvassed are two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that NCB is created by a Government Order by exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act') with a limited range of powers and functions. Secondly, the officers of the NCB have no competence to conduct the investigation, since the NCB is not a department within the meaning of Sections 41, 42, 53 and 67 of the NDPS Act. The Counsel placed reliance on the unreported decision of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1997 dated 13.12.2000. Therefore, strenuously contended that the investigations done in the present cases is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Counsel placed reliance on the unreported decision of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1997 dated 13.12.2000. Therefore, strenuously contended that the investigations done in the present cases is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Secondly contended that investigation done by Excise Inspector is bad in law and without competent authority in this regard relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Roy M.D. v. State of Kerala 2000 SCW 4005. 5. For the convenient reference, the provisions of Section 4 of the NDPS Act are extracted hereunder: 4. Central Government to take measures for preventing and combating abuse of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs etc.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government shall take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of preventing and combating abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the illicit traffic therein. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-section (1), the measures which the Central Government may take under the Sub-section include measures with respect to all or any of the following matters namely: (a) Co-ordination of actions by various officers, State Governments and other authorities; (i) Under this Act, or (ii) Under any other law for the time being in force in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this Act. (b) obligation under the International Conventions; (c) assistance to the concerned authorities in foreign countries and concerned international organizations with a view of facilitating co-ordination and universal action for prevention and suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; (d) identification, treatment, education, after care, (e) rehabilitation and social re-integration of addicts; (e) such other matters as the Central Government deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing the effective implementation of the provisions of this Act and preventing and combating the abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and illicit traffic therein. (3) The Central Government may, if it considers necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of this Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority or a hierarchy of authorities by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising such of the powers and functions of the Central Government under this Act for taking measures with respect to such of the matters referred to in Sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the order, and subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government and the provisions of such order, such authority or authorities may exercise the powers and take the measures so mentioned in the order as if such authority or authorities had been empowered by this Act to exercise those powers and take such measures. 6. The notification of the Government of India issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 Constituting the NCB as under: By Notification No. S.O. 96-E dated 17.3.1986 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue published in the Gazette of India Extra Part II, Section 3(ii), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, the Central Government constituted an authority to be known as "Narcotic Control Bureau which, according to the Notification, was subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government and provisions of the Order, required to exercise powers and functions of the Central Government for taking measures in respect of the following matters referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 4, namely: (1) Co-ordination of actions by various officers, State Governments and other authorities under the Principal Act, the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) and by other law for the time being in force in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of the Principal Act. (2) Implementation of the obligations in respect of counter measures against illicit traffic, under: a) the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961; b) the Protocol of 1972 amending the aforesaid Convention, c) the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 and d) any other international convention or protocol or other instrument amending an international convention relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which may be ratified or acceded to by India hereafter. (3) Assistant to concerned authorities in foreign countries and concerned international organisations with a view to facilitating co-ordination and suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The powers, therefore, required to be exercised by NCB were circumscribed by the Order/Notification that brought it into existence, namely those powers mentioned above. At this juncture it would be necessary to advert to Section 4 of the Act which reads as under: 4. Central Government to take measures for preventing and combating abuse of and illicit traffic in narcotic drugs etc. (1) .... (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-section (1), the measures which the Central Government may take under that Sub-section include measures with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely: (a) co-ordination of actions by various officers, State Governments and other authorities- (i) under this Act, or (ii) under any other law for the time being in force in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of this Act. (b) obligations under the International Conventions; (c) assistance to the concerned authorities in foreign countries and concerned international organizations with a view to facilitating co-ordination and universal action for prevention and suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; (d) identification, treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social re-integration of addicts; (e) such other matters as the Central Government deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing the effective implementation of the (sic) (f) provisions of this Act and preventing and combating the abuse of narcotic drugs psychotropic substances and illicit traffic therein: (3) The Central Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do for the purposes of this Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority or a hierarchy of authorities by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising such of the powers and functions of the Central Government under this Act for taking measures with respect to such of the matters referred to in Sub-section (2) as may be mentioned in the order, and subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government and the provisions of such order, such authority or authorities may exercise the powers and take the measures, so mentioned in the order as if such authority or authorities had been empowered by this Act to exercise those powers and take such measures. 7. In the ruling of the Delhi High Court, Justice R.S. Sodhi has taken a view that in the notification constituting NCB, there is conspicuous absence of delegation of powers envisaged under Sub-section (2)(e) of Section 4 which are wide in its amplitude and would have enabled the authority constituted to take effective steps suo motu for preventing and combating the abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. In view of the conspicuous absence, it is held that the text of the notification does not confer unfettered functional powers on NCB which it could have otherwise exercised had the powers under Section 4(2)(e) been conferred. 8. It is further held that the NCB is a statutory authority constituted under Section 4(3) of the NDPS Act. In view of the conspicuous absence, it is held that the text of the notification does not confer unfettered functional powers on NCB which it could have otherwise exercised had the powers under Section 4(2)(e) been conferred. 8. It is further held that the NCB is a statutory authority constituted under Section 4(3) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, not a department of the Central Government in order to exercise the powers of investigation under Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act and the learned judge also holds that the NCB being a creator of the statute to assume delegation of powers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act for investigation under Sections 41, 42 and 54 is untenable. 9. After carefully going through the judgment of the Delhi High Court, with great respect I am unable to agree with the views of the learned R.S. Sodhi, J. Merely by the conspicuous omission of the provisions of Sub-section (2)(e) of Sub-section (4) in the notification issued by the Central Government it cannot be interpreted to mean the officers of the NCB are not empowered under the Act to conduct investigations. So also I am unable to agree with the view that the NCB is a statutory authority. 10. Neither NCB nor any other authority as such created or constituted by the provisions of Sub-section (3) would be a statutory authority. The said provision only gives a discretion to the Central Government to create any authority and when once such authority is created, there is a delegation of powers of the Central Government to the authority so created by the legislative declaration and the authority so created has to function subject to the supervision and powers of the Central Government. The NCB created has no independent functional and autonomous existence. Therefore, it may not be proper to consider NCB as a statutory authority. On the other hand, NCB is only an administrative authority subordinate to the Central Government. 11. The NCB created has no independent functional and autonomous existence. Therefore, it may not be proper to consider NCB as a statutory authority. On the other hand, NCB is only an administrative authority subordinate to the Central Government. 11. The notification issued while constituting NCB and the other notifications referred to by the Counsel for the Respondents which are reproduced hereunder: PUBLISHED IN PART II, SECTION 3, Sub-section (ii) OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRA ORDINARY, DATED 1st NOVEMBER, 1986/10th KARTIKA, 1908 (SAKA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE)NEW DELHI, THE 1st NOVEMBER,1986 10th KARTIKA, 1908 (SAKA) NOTIFICATION S.O. 3776-In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. S.O. 822 (E), dated the 14th November, 1985, namely: In the said notification, after the word Intelligence Bureau, the words and Narcotics Control Bureau shall be inserted. Sd/- (V. KANNAN) Under Secretary to the Government of India II. PUBLISHED IN PART II, SECTION 3, Sub-section (ii) OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRA ORDINARY, DATED 1st NOVEMBER, 1986/10th KARTIKA, 1908 (SAKA) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) NEW DELHI, THE 1st NOVEMBER, 1986 10th KARTIKA, 1908 (SAKA) NOTIFICATION S.O. 3778: In exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. S.O. 824 (E) dated the 14th November, 1985, namely: In the said notification, after the word "Intelligence Bureau", the words "and Narcotics Control Bureau" shall be inserted. Sd/- (V. KANNAN) Under Secretary to the Government of India". III. Notification No. 6 of 1985, dated 14.11.1985. Sd/- (V. KANNAN) Under Secretary to the Government of India". III. Notification No. 6 of 1985, dated 14.11.1985. S.O. 822 (E): In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 42 and Section 67 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby empowers the Officers of and above the rank of sub-inspector in the department of Narcotics and of and above the rank of Inspector in the departments of Central Excise, Excise, Customs, and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau to exercise the powers and perform the duties specified in Section 42 within the area of their respective jurisdiction and also authorises the said officers to exercise the powers conferred upon them under Section 67. Notification No. 7 of 1985, dated 14.11.1985 S.O. 823 (E): In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government, after consultation with all the State Governments hereby invests the officers of and above the rank of Inspector in the Departments of Central Excise, Customs and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Intelligence Bureau with the powers specified in Sub-section (1) of that section. Notification No. 8 of 1985, dated 14.11.1985: S.O. 824 (E): In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government, hereby empowers the officers of and above the rank of Inspector in the Departments of Central Excise, Customs, and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau with the powers specified in Sub-section (2) of that section within the area of their respective jurisdiction. IV. IV. PUBLISHED IN PART II, SECTION 3 Sub-section (ii) OF GAZETTE OF INDIA (EXTRA ORDINARILY) DATED 27th SEPTEMBER, 1989, (No. 611) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE(Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 27th September, 1989 ORDER S.O. 763 (E): In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby authorise the officers of and above the rank of Inspector in the Department of Customs, Central Excise, Narcotics, Revenue Intelligence, Central, Economic Intelligence Bureau and the Narcotics Control Bureau under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for filing of complaints relating to an offence under the said Act before Special Courts. Sd-xxx Additional Secretary to the Government of India 12. The rules formulated by the President under Article 309 of the Constitution for recruitment to the personnel to the NCB is reproduced to the extent relevant and necessary. New Delhi, the 18th September, 1996. G.S.R. 420-In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of india, the President hereby makes the following rules regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Intelligence Officer in the Narcotics Control Bureau in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, namely: (1) Short title and commencement.-These Rules may be called the Department of Revenue, Narcotics Control Bureau (Intelligence Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1996. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 13. The close reading of the rules framed under Article 309 by the President and the notifications would indisputably indicate that the NCB is only an extended wing of the department of Revenue controlled by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 14. The contention that in the absence of conferment of powers under Section 4(2)(e) to the NCB, it does not enjoy the powers of investigation does not appear to be a tenable argument. In the notification issued, the nature of powers and functions listed at item No. 1 enjoins the NCB with the power of co-ordination with the various and other authorities of the State and Central Government under the principal Act and other allied enactments which are time being in force in connection with the enforcement of the provision of the principal Act. There is no doubt that the NCB has been given the powers to co-ordinate with the other functionaries for enforcement of the provision of the principle Act. The word 'co-ordination' has not been defined under the Act. 15. The Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English, New Edition, 1995 explains the words 'co-ordination' and 'co-ordinator' thus: Co-ordination: To organize activity so that people involved in it work together and achieve good result. Co-ordinator: Some one to organize the people work in activity. When any authority is given a power of co-ordination which incidentally has advisory/directory jurisdiction over the other functionaries with whom the co-ordination has to take place. Sometimes in exercise of co-ordinating jurisdiction the NCB may also have the over lapping incidences of supervisory jurisdiction. Therefore, NCB which is invested with co-ordinating jurisdiction by necessary legal implications derive the original functionary powers of all the authorities with whom it has to effectively interact and co-ordinate. In the absence of such derivative functional powers the power of co-ordinating jurisdiction becomes illusory and does not make any legal sense. In that view with the powers of the co-ordinating jurisdiction the NCB has all the powers in law to carry out to the investigations under Sections 41, 42, 43 like the other named functionaries in the said sections. 16. The contention of the Counsel for Petitioners that only the officers above the rank of Excise Inspector is competent to investigate does not appear to be a tenable contention. 17. The careful reading of the provisions of Sections 41, 42 and 50 makes a clear distinction in the hierarchy officers who could be empowered under Sections 41 and 42. Under Section 41, it is only the Gazetted Officers of the Department named in the said section could be empowered by notification and the Gazetted Officers so notified are also empowered to direct their subordinates to investigate under Section 41(2) and the sub-ordinate officers so directed are described as Authorised Officers. 18. Under Section 42, any officer of the departments mentioned therein by the State or Central Government above the rank of a Sepoy or a Constable but not being a Gazetted Officer could be empowered to conduct investigation. The authorised officers under Section 41(2) and the empowered officers of Section 42 do not enjoy unfettered powers of investigation. Their powers of investigation is limited and controlled with regard to search and seizure. The authorised officers under Section 41(2) and the empowered officers of Section 42 do not enjoy unfettered powers of investigation. Their powers of investigation is limited and controlled with regard to search and seizure. On receipt of information empowered officer under Section 42 have to inform their superiors before they proceed for search and seizure and they are also not entitled to carry out the search and seizure after the sunset and one obliged to comply the provision of Section 50. 19. The provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act when read carefully suggest that the restrictions of search and seizure in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate is made applicable only to empowered officers under Section 42 or Non-Gazetted Officers who are authorised to investigate under Section 41 but does not apply to the Gazetted Officers who are empowered to investigate under Section 41. The word 'Gazetted Officer' occurring in Sections 41, 42 and 50 would mean only the Gazetted Officers of the State or Central Government of the Departments named in the said sections and not the other Gazetted Officers of any other Department. 20. The provisions of Section 50 appears to have been incorporated to ensure fair and impartial investigation and to prevent the lower rank officers from indulging in unholy practices of false implications. However if the provisions of Section 50 is critically analysed, it appears to be a superfluous and redundant provision with no practical utility and relevance to serve to the object for which it is made. The provisions of Section 50 apply only to the cases of personal search. 21. In the conventional investigation, the officer proceeding to the spot when expected to do search and seizure would take with him the panch witnesses to vouch-safe the proceedings of search and seizure carried at the spot. By virtue of the provisions of Section 50 now, the Investigating Officer is obliged to inform the accused about his right to search in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer named under Section 42 and produce the accused accordingly before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer if he so chooses. In other words, the Investigating Officer should not carry out search or seizure immediately at the spot and produce the accused in the same state as he was apprehended. In other words, the Investigating Officer should not carry out search or seizure immediately at the spot and produce the accused in the same state as he was apprehended. While complying the provisions of Section 50, the Investigating Officers many a time faulter in not taking with them the panch witnesses to vouch-safe the proceedings of arrest to show that the accused was arrested and in the same condition was produced before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. When the conventional practice of taking panch witness is not followed, the investigation is likely to suffer fatally if the accused were to take a stand before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate that the incriminating article has been implanted after his arrest. The procedure prescribed for maintaining probity under Section 50 appears to be cumbersome and insisting duplicated procedures which has resulted in large scale unjust acquittals in view of technical lapses. The object of fair investigation would otherwise better served if provisions of Section 50 is amended prescribing the insistance of arrest immediately to be followed by search and seizure to be done in presence of panch witnesses who are of a specified category of status and rank. Otherwise, it should be made as a rule that arrest followed by immediate search and seizure has to be done only by the Gazetted Officers by taking away the power of investigation of the lower rank officers in such situations. 22. The discussion made above although not very much germane for the controversy in issue, however for proper guidance to the functionaries under the Act, the proper perspectives and purport of Section 50 is explained critically and so also the respective State and Central Government should issue notifications in a proper manner under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act by empowering the officers of the gazetted rank and non-gazetted rank distinctly and separately. 23. On going through the facts stated in the decision in SCW 2000 page 4005 suo motu, it reveals that on 21.11.1990 on the date of the offence when the Excise Inspector conducted the investigation, there was no power to conduct the investigation under Section 36A of the NDPS Act. However the investigation was conducted, charge sheet was filed. For want of competence to investigate, the accused was discharged. However the investigation was conducted, charge sheet was filed. For want of competence to investigate, the accused was discharged. Subsequently notification authorising the inspectors of Excise was issued on 20.10.1992 based on the said notification for a second time charge sheet was filed on the basis of earlier investigation material. In that context it was held that at the time when the investigation was conducted by the Inspector, he was not competent. Therefore, by virtue of the subsequent notification, the Excise Inspector was not legally entitled to prosecute the accused in respect of an investigation done earlier when he had no powers of investigation. 24. Therefore, the ratio has no relevance to the facts and contention raised. In the present case, as on the date of the offence, the Excise Inspector is duly empowered under the notification and the text of the provisions empower the officers of and above the rank of inspectors. In that view I do not find any merit in the petitions. Accordingly, dismissed. 25. Registry is directed to send the copy of the judgment to the Department of Law, Government of Karnataka and also to the Director General of Police, Karnataka, for proper compliance of the observations in paras 17 to 22 of this order.