ORDER 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ACCUSED IN NDPS SPECIAL CASE NO. 412 OF 1996 WHO STOOD CONVICTED FOR AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 8(C) READ WITH SECTION 21 OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ACT") WITH A SENTENCE OF 10 YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT, IN ADDITION TO THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE OF RS 1,00,000 IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF WHICH, TO UNDERGO A FURTHER SENTENCE OF SIX MONTHS. ACCUSED 2 WAS ACQUITTED EVEN BY THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE. THE APPELLANT PURSUED THE MATTER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND COULD NOT SUCCEED, RESULTING IN THE FILING OF THE ABOVE APPEAL. 2. MR R.K. KAURA, THE LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT REITERATED THE CONTENTION WHICH COULD NOT MEET THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COURTS BELOW THAT THERE HAD BEEN GROSS VIOLATION OF SECTION 50 OF THE NDPS ACT, IN THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE SEARCHED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE OR A GAZETTED OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO URGED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THERE WAS MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT PW 4 BEING HIMSELF A GAZETTED OFFICER, THOUGH, IT TURNED OUT TO BE THAT HE WAS ONLY A SUB-INSPECTOR AND THAT ALL THESE VITIATING CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER THE CONVICTION ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT STATE, WHILE ADOPTING THE REASONING OF THE COURTS BELOW VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THERE HAS BEEN SUFFICIENT AND PROPER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 OF THE NDPS ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 4. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS BELOW AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AS ACCUSED 1 UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND IT WAS EMPHASISED THAT TO THE QUESTIONS PUT TO THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS INCRIMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST HIM INCLUDING THE ONE PERTAINING TO THE LAWFUL NATURE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE APPELLANT POSITIVELY ASSERTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE PROSECUTION IN THIS REGARD WAS FALSE AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE BURDEN RESTED HEAVILY ON THE PROSECUTION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS TO THE CONTRA BEFORE THE CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT COULD BE SECURED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS EFFECTED. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN STATE OF PUNJAB V. BALDEV SINGHL RENDERED BY A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN WHICH THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO THE NEED AS WELL AS MODE OF COMPLYING WITH SECTION 50 OF THE ACT CAME TO BE ELABORATELY CONSIDERED AND EXPLICITLY LAID DOWN. SO FAR AS THE RELEVANT ASPECT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CHALLENGE TO THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THIS CASE TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS QUESTIONED, IT IS USEFUL TO FIND EVEN FROM THE VERY JUDGMENT THAT THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE ACT WERE OBSERVED WOULD HAVE, HOWEVER, TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURTS ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE LED AT THE TRIAL AND THE FINDING ON THAT ISSUE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WOULD BE RELEVANT FOR RECORDING AN ORDER OF CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT COGENT AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PLACED DURING TRIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT THERE HAD BEEN DUE AND PROPER INTIMATION FURNISHED TO THE ACCUSED AS TO THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE SEARCH CONDUCTED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE OR A GAZETTED OFFICER AND THAT THE ACCUSED WHO IS THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS COURT AS WELL AS THE OTHER HAS EXPRESSED HIS WILLINGNESS TO BE SEARCHED BY THE OFFICERS PRESENT THEMSELVES. THE VAGUE PLEA NOW RAISED THAT PW 4 REPRESENTED THAT HE IS A GAZETTED OFFICER IS INCORRECT AND WAS NOT THE PLEA OR ASSERTION DURING TRIAL OR IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN UNDER SECTION 313 CRPC. IT IS ONLY THE POLICE INSPECTOR SANGHAI WHO MADE SUCH REPRESENTATION AND NOT PW 4. THERE WAS AN INDEPENDENT PANCH A WITNESS TOO, FOR THE SEIZURE. IN THE TEETH OF THIS CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO DOUBT THE VERACITY AND TRUTHFULNESS OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT, WE ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO FIND ANY FAULT AND INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY BOTH THE COURTS BELOW. 5. IN THE TEETH OF THIS CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO DOUBT THE VERACITY AND TRUTHFULNESS OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT, WE ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO FIND ANY FAULT AND INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY BOTH THE COURTS BELOW. 5. THAT APART, FROM THE FACTS PROVED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE RECOVERY OF THE DRUG IN QUESTION WAS ONLY FROM THE BLACK-COLOURED PLASTIC BAG WHICH WAS B CARRIED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RIGHT HAND, THE GRIEVANCE ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY AS WELL AS ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 50 OF THE ACT BECOMES NOT RELEVANT AND WHOLLY UNTENABLE VIDE KANHAIYA LAL V. STATE OF M.P.2 6. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS BELOW TO WARRANT OUR INTERFERENCE. THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, FAILS AND SHALL STAND DISMISSED. WE PLACE ON RECORD OUR APPRECIATION OF THE THOROUGHNESS WITH WHICH THE CASE HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AND ASSISTANCE RENDERED BY THE LEARNED AMICUS CURIAE.