Judgment JAGAT SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/12/1998, passed by learned Special Judge, Special Cases, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. (216/96) 228/97 convicting the accused-appellant for offence under Sec. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the Act) and sentencing him to imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac, in default of payment whereof to further undergo eight months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE concise facts relevant for the disposal of this lis are that at about 8. 30 p. m. on 27-6-1996 in the city of Bhilwara at Chungi-naka No. 2, Rajesh Kumar Meena, Sub-Inspector; PW-3-P. K. Sinha, Superintendent along with other supporting staff of the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter the Bureau) were members of the checking party, as they had an information that some contraband is being transported on that route. At the above time, one bus No. DL 1p 4654 of Rishabh Travels came from side of Chittorgarh, which was checked by the aforesaid persons and the accused appellant was found sitting on seat No. 11. He was suspected to be having some narcotics, therefore, his personal search was necessary. Hence, he was given notice Ex. P6 under Sec. 50 of the Act - as to whether he wanted to be searched before any Gazetted Officer of the department mentioned under Sec. 42 of the Act or by the nearest Magistrate. Ex. P6 was given in the presence of two attesting witnesses- PW1 Jagat Singh and PW2 Jamna Lal. Accused chose to be searched by the officers of the department and therefore, he was searched by PW5 Rajesh Kumar Meena in the presence of both above attesting witnesses. ( 3 ) IN the personal search, a polyethene bag in his underwear was found containing 1. 200 Kg opium. Similarly, he was holding a plastic water bottle. Upon its search, there were found two plastic bags, containing 1. 50 Kg. and 1. 650 Kg. opium respectively. Accused was not having licence to carry the contraband and therefore, all the three consignments were seized and mixed together and out of whole lot, weighing 3. 900 Kg. , only two samples, of 25 gms. each, were taken and sealed. Upon its search, there were found two plastic bags, containing 1. 50 Kg. and 1. 650 Kg. opium respectively. Accused was not having licence to carry the contraband and therefore, all the three consignments were seized and mixed together and out of whole lot, weighing 3. 900 Kg. , only two samples, of 25 gms. each, were taken and sealed. The remaining contraband was also seized and sealed forthwith in the presence of both the attesting witnesses. Necessary seizure memos were prepared at the site and accused was put under arrest. ( 4 ) THE samples in the sealed condition were sent to the Government Opium and Alkoloid Works, Neemach, (MP) vide receipt Ex. P1 on 28-6-1996. Upon examination, vide report Ex. P10, it was found to be having morphine 4. 73% and therefore, was detected as opium within meaning of Sec. 2 (xv) of the Act. # ( 5 ) THE accused was challaned and charged for the above offence. Upon his claiming trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited as many documents. In his statement given under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. , accused denied all the incriminating evidence produced against him and pleaded false implication. Thereafter, learned Court below, after a detailed discussion of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as stated above. ( 6 ) THE main attack of learned Counsel for the appellant was that mandatory provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act have not been complied with because no notice under Sec. 50 of the Act as either addressed to the accused or given to him. Similarly, both the attesting witnesses have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution version and therefore, remaining evidence of employees of the Bureau should not be placed much reliance unless and until their testimony is found to be sterling worth. Learned Counsel has also pointed out material contradiction, inter se, in the evidence of employees of the Bureau to bring home his point. On the contrary, Mr. S. K. Vyas, learned Counsel for Union of India has supported the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) I have given my serious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. Learned Counsel has also pointed out material contradiction, inter se, in the evidence of employees of the Bureau to bring home his point. On the contrary, Mr. S. K. Vyas, learned Counsel for Union of India has supported the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) I have given my serious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. The Apex Court time and again and more so, in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 Cri LR (SC) 241; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 4 JT (SC) 595 and lately in Gurbux Singh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 2 JT (SC) 330 as also in spate of judgments, has held that compliance of provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act is mandatory and any violation of these provisions goes to root of the case. # ( 8 ) IN the matter at hand, Ex. P6 is the notice, alleged to be given under Sec. 50 of the Act, in the presence of PW1 Jagat Singh and PW2 Jamna Lal, the attesting witnesses. Both these attesting witnesses have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution version to the least. Both these witnesses have deposed that their signatures have been obtained on blank papers, they are not recognising the accused present in the Court nor he had been searched in their presence nor any contraband has been recovered from him in their presence. Even assuming that both these attesting witnesses have been influenced and have not supported the prosecution case in the Court, at least employees of the Bureau should have taken care to make compliance of provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act. Nowhere it is indicated from Ex. P6 that it was addressed to the accused Ladoo Ram or at least its copy was given to him or even it was read over to him, he being illiterate. A bare reading of Ex. P6 indicates that in the presence of aforestated two attesting witnesses, accused was informed that if he wished, he could be taken for search before a Gazetted Officer of the department mentioned under Sec. 42 of the Act or to the nearest Magistrate. What was mandatory under the Act was this that Ex. A bare reading of Ex. P6 indicates that in the presence of aforestated two attesting witnesses, accused was informed that if he wished, he could be taken for search before a Gazetted Officer of the department mentioned under Sec. 42 of the Act or to the nearest Magistrate. What was mandatory under the Act was this that Ex. P6 should have been addressed to accused Ladoo Ram, its copy should have been given to him and importantly, his signature or thumb impression should have been received on the main notice, to be retained for the Court proceedings and thereafter, choice of the accused should have been obtained on the notice itself. Nothing of the sort has been done in the present case. Nowhere it has been indicated either by notice Ex. P6 or by the seizure memo Ex. P1 that Ex. P6 notice was either read over to the accused or its copy was given to him. A thumb impression of the accused was found on Ex. P6 that indicates that he was illiterate. Unless and until Ex. P6 would have been explained and read over to the accused, it cannot be said that accused was informed before his personal search that he had a choice to be searched either before nearest Magistrate or before a Gazetted Officer of the department mentioned under Sec. 42 of the Act. ( 9 ) THOUGH above mandatory requirement is not found in Ex. P6 and has not been supported by ocular testimony of PW1 Jagat Singh and PW2-Jamna Lal, even departmental witnesses PW3-Pramod Kumar Sinha, Office Superintendent, PW4-Mohan Lal, Constable and PW5-Rajesh Kumar, the Sub-Inspector of the Bureau, have not stated in the Court that Ex. P6 notice was explained and read over to the accused before embarking upon his personal search, therefore, mandatory provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act have not been complied with, causing miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act have been made to protect innocent persons, who may be unlawfully trapped and falsely concocted of having narcotic drugs. Though search conducted in violation of Sec. 50 of the Act is not rendered inadmissible yet credibility which attaches itself to a lawful search, may not be available and weight of such evidence would be much less than weight which would attach itself to a lawful search. Though search conducted in violation of Sec. 50 of the Act is not rendered inadmissible yet credibility which attaches itself to a lawful search, may not be available and weight of such evidence would be much less than weight which would attach itself to a lawful search. ( 10 ) THE Apex Court in latest pronouncement in Gurbux Singh (2001 Cri LJ 1166) as also in Baldev Singh (supra) has mandated that if compliance of mandatory provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act is not made, the prejudice to the accused is writ large and vitiates the trial, yet I have embarked upon the exercise whether the remaining evidence is trustworthy. ( 11 ) IN the matter at hand, both the attesting witnesses PW1 Jagat Singh and PW2 Jamna Lal have been declared hostile. The remaining evidence available on the file is of the employees of the Bureau. Their testimony though cannot be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that they happen to be official employees but as a rule of caution and depending upon circumstances of the case, Courts must look for independent corroboration, as held in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra ). ( 12 ) THERE are material contradictions pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant in the testimony of PW4 Mohan Lal and PW5 Rajesh Kumar Meena, with regard to fact whether personal search of accused was conducted inside the bus in which he was travelling or outside the bus. According to PW4 Mohan Lal, personal search of the accused was conducted after he was taken out of the bus whereas according to PW5 Rajesh Kumar Meena, as also seizure memo Ex. P1, personal search of the accused was conducted inside the bus. ( 13 ) SIMILARLY, with regard to factum of preparation of memo Ex. P6, there are material contradictions, inter se, in between ocular testimony of PW5 Rajesh Kumar Meena, who states that it was prepared inside the bus whereas according to PW4 Mohan Lal and PW7 Bajrang Lal, no memo was prepared inside the bus. ( 14 ) SO far as sending of sealed samples to Nimach factory is concerned, nowhere it has been stated that along with the samples Ex. P3, copy of impression of the seal prepared at the site was also sent. ( 14 ) SO far as sending of sealed samples to Nimach factory is concerned, nowhere it has been stated that along with the samples Ex. P3, copy of impression of the seal prepared at the site was also sent. Even PW6 Dinesh Kumar Chandrawat, who took the samples to Nimach factory, has not stated that along with the sealed samples, he was also given any copy of Ex. P3 which he had handed over to the officers at Nimach factory along with the sealed samples. Similarly, there are material contradictions with regard to sealed samples as to where were these deposited after the seizure and by whom these were given to Dinesh Kumar PW6 for depositing in the laboratory. According to PW3 P. K. Sinha, he gave the samples to Dinesh Kumar for taking to Nimach factory, so has been deposed by PW6 Dinesh Kumar but PW9 Murli Dhankani, Investigating Officer has stated that upon instructions of Shri P. K. Sinha, he gave the samples to Rajesh Kumar Meena (PW5) and not to Dinesh Kumar (PW6 ). PW5 Rajesh Kumar has not corroborated above theory and has not stated that samples were ever given to him by anybody or he has given the same to Dinesh Kumar for depositing at Nimach factory. Similarly, according to PW9 Murli Dhankani, M. G. Leley was Incharge, Malkhana, with whom impugned samples remained immediately after seizure till they were sent to Nimach factory for examination. Said M. G. Lelely has not been examined nor Malkhana register or its copy has been produced in support of the testimony as to what happened with regard to samples after the seizure until they were sent to Nimach factory for examination. ( 15 ) ALL these inconsistencies, contradictions and embellishments affect the testimonial value of the remaining witnesses, who are employees of the Bureau and no implicit reliance can be placed upon them. Learned Court below has not assessed and analysed the ocular and documentary evidence in right perspective and has not reached to a correct conclusion. ( 16 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is accepted, conviction and sentence awarded to the accused Ladoo Ram is set aside. If the appellant is not required in any other case, he be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.