Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 211.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara by which he convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and has sentenced him to undergo 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-in default of payment to further undergo 6 months S.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 211.2000 at about 1 A.M. Head Constable Gopal Lal informed the SHO, Police Station Jagdish Prasad alleging that he has stopped Tulsi Prasad S/o Laxmi Prasad, resident of 13/46, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur at Roadways Bus-stand and as per the Mukhbir information, he is having heroin. Sh. Jagdish Prasad forwarded the said information to the Circle Officer, Bhilwara City and also forwarded the information to the S.P., Bhilwara in conformity with the provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act alongwith Sh. Ajay Singh. It is alleged that thereafter Sh. Jagdish Prasad alongwith the police party reached the Roadways Bus-stand at 1.15 A.M., whereas Head Constable Gopal Lal, Constable Moti Lal, Bhanwar Lal, and Babu Lal alongwith motbirs Kailash Chandra and Satyanarayan were standing around a man. Sh. Pradeep Mohan Sharma, Circle Office, Bhilwara City also reached the spot. On enquiry, the said person disclosed his name to be Tulsi Prasad. Thereafter it is alleged that the accused appellant was given a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act about his search and he was informed about his right to have his search either before Magistrate or a gazetted officer and it is alleged that the accused appellant gave his consent in his own hand-writing to have his search by the Circle Officer. Thereafter search of the accused appellant was taken and from the pocket of his “Baniyan”, a light orange colour polyethene bag was recovered, in which a white colour polyethene bag was lying and in the said polyethene bag, a brown colour powder was lying, which on smell and taste was found to be heroin. On enquiry, it was found that the accused appellant was not having any valid licence. It is further alleged that on weighing, the weight of the heroin alongwith the polyethene bag was found to be 470 gms, out of which 2 samples (marks A1 and A2) of 20 gms. On enquiry, it was found that the accused appellant was not having any valid licence. It is further alleged that on weighing, the weight of the heroin alongwith the polyethene bag was found to be 470 gms, out of which 2 samples (marks A1 and A2) of 20 gms. each were taken out and remaining heroin was seized and sealed. Thereafter the accused appellant was arrested and on the site, recovery memo, search memo, arrest memo, specimen seal memo etc. were prepared and the accused alongwith the recovered article was brought to the police station, where a FIR No. 590/2000 was registered and investigation commenced. 3. During the course of investigation, the accused appellant is alleged to have given information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in which he stated that he has purchased the heroin from one Sh. Fakir Mohd., resident of Bajkhedi, Mandsore. However said Sh. Fakir Mohd. could not be apprehended and is still absconding. 4. After investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant for offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. 5. The charge for offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case and 24 documents were got exhibited. The accused in his statement under Section 313, CrPC, denied the allegation levelled by the prosecution and did not examine any witness in defence. 7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide Judgment and order dated 211.2001 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 8. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal from jail. Since, nobody was representing the accused appellant in this case, therefore, this Court by order dated 012.2003 appointed Sh. Umesh Shrimali as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 9. 8. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal from jail. Since, nobody was representing the accused appellant in this case, therefore, this Court by order dated 012.2003 appointed Sh. Umesh Shrimali as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 9. In the present case the Counsel for the appellant has raised two fold arguments; first argument is that the prosecution has failed to prove that in this case mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied, with and second argument is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the sample seized remained in the self-same condition right from the time of seizure till it reached the chemical examiner and the requisite link evidence in this regard is missing. In support of the first argument, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the accused appellant has not been given option in conformity with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It has also been alleged that the accused appellant has not been informed about his right to have his search by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the motbir witness PW. 12 Kailash has not supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile and so far as statement of another motbir witness PW. 11 Sh. Satya Narayan is concerned, there are material contradictions in his statement and no reliance should have been placed on his statement. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in this case, Sh. Pradeep Mohan Sharma in whose presence search was made, has also not been examined and, therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn on account of non-production of Sh. Pradeep Mohan Sharma. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the following authorities in respect of non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 2004(1) RCrD 30 (Raj.) Harlal vs. State of Rajasthan. 2000 (10) SCC 222 K. Mohanan vs. State of Kerala 10. In support of his second argument it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per the recovery memo (Exhibit P/16), the sample was taken in plastic bag, whereas as per the FSL Report Exhibit P/20, the sample was received in metallic container. 2000 (10) SCC 222 K. Mohanan vs. State of Kerala 10. In support of his second argument it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per the recovery memo (Exhibit P/16), the sample was taken in plastic bag, whereas as per the FSL Report Exhibit P/20, the sample was received in metallic container. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the relevant link evidence regarding the sample being remained in self -same condition right from the time of seizure till it reached the chemical examiner is also missing. 11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Public Prosecutor has stated that the findings recorded by the learned Court below are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. It has also been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no specific form prescribed or intended for conveying the information required to be given under Section 50. What is necessary is that the accused should be made aware of the existence of his right to be searched in presence of one of the officers named in the section itself . In the present case also, the accused appellant has been informed about his right to have his search in presence of one of the officers named in the section itself . Therefore, compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been made. The learned Public Prosecutor also urged that the prosecution has also proved the requisite link evidence and hence, no interference is called for in the Judgment and order passed by the Court below. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the following authorities: Smt. Krishna Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2004 SCW 1203 State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Chandra, 2005 (5) SRJ 179 State of Orissa vs. Rajendra Tripathy, 2004 (5) SCC 236 . 12. Heard and perused the record. 13. In order to appreciate the first argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the relevant evidence available on record has to be examined. 14. In this case it is admitted position that before proceeding to search the accused appellant notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him. 12. Heard and perused the record. 13. In order to appreciate the first argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the relevant evidence available on record has to be examined. 14. In this case it is admitted position that before proceeding to search the accused appellant notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the accused appellant was informed about his right to have his search in presence of a Magistrate or gazetted officer in conformity with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The option under Section 50 of the NDPS Act which has been given to the appellant reads as under: Þmijksä eksrchjku ds le{k o ekStqnxh Jheku iznhi eksdke M+osylh izlknS/O y{eh izlkn JhokLro tkfr dk;LFk mez 50 jkst cl LVs.M HkhyokM+k ij Jh rqj iqfyl LVsku o:.k iFk t;iq lky R/O 13@461 dkosjh iFk eku ljksoj t;iqj ds le{k euHC Fkkuk txnhk izlkn us tfj;s uksfVl lwfpr fd;k fd rqEgkjs ikl diMksa esa fgjksbu gksus dh lEHkkouk a rqgSa vr% rqEgkjh rykkh fdlh fudVre eftLVsªV ;k xftVsM vQlj ds lEeq[k fyokuh gSe pkgksa rks eftLVsªV ;k xftVsM vQlj dks ;gka cqyk;k tkosAß 15. At the back of the notice, the accused appellant himself has given his consent in his own hand-writing that he does not want to have his search in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He has also stated that his search be taken in presence of Dy. S.P. The consent note made by the accused appellant reads as under:- Þegksn; th eSa viuh Lo;e dh rykkh fdlh eftLVsªV ;k vU; xtVsV vQlj ls ugha yhokuk pkgrk gaw esjh rykkh MhiVh lkgc] ds lkeus vki gh ysys SD/- 16. A bare perusal of the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act goes to show that the accused appellant in clear term has been informed about his right to have his search before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. However, he himself refused to have his search before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer and gave his consent for his search in presence of Dy. S.P. 17. PW. 3 Jagdish Prasad, SHO in his statement has clearly stated that the accused appellant was given notice (Ex. However, he himself refused to have his search before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer and gave his consent for his search in presence of Dy. S.P. 17. PW. 3 Jagdish Prasad, SHO in his statement has clearly stated that the accused appellant was given notice (Ex. P/15) under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in presence of motbir witnesses Kailash and Satya Narayan as well as Dy. S.P. Pradeep Mohan Sharma. He has also stated that the accused appellant was informed about his right to have his search before a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. He further stated that the accused appellant returned the notice to him and gave his consent in his own hand-writing that his search be taken in presence of Dy. S.P. After his consent, his search was taken in presence of Dy. S.P. 18. Similarly PW. 1 Radha Krishna, Constable has stated in unequivocal term that before search, the accused appellant was given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and he was informed about his right to have his search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He has also stated that the accused appellant gave his consent to have his search in presence of Dy. S.P. Similar is the statement of PW. 7 Gopal Singh who has also stated that the accused appellant has been informed about his right to have his search in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, but the accused appellant gave his consent in right to have his search in presence of Dy. S.P. 19. PW. 8 Gopal Lal has also corroborated the statements of PW.1 Radha Krishna, PW. 3 Jagdish Prasad and PW. 7 Gopal Singh. 20. The independent witness PW. 11 Satya Narayan has also stated that the accused appellant was given option to have his search in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but the accused appellant agreed to have his search in presence of Dy. S.P. Therefore, the independent witness PW. 11 Satya Narayan has also supported the prosecution story and from the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has proved the fact that in the present case provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with and before taking search of the accused appellant he has been given option about his search as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 21. 21. So far as the fact that another independent witness PW. 12 Kailash has been declared hostile is concerned, it may be stated that he has been declared hostile and, therefore, his statement cannot be read in evidence. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in particular notice (Ex. P/15), and statements of PW. 1, Radha Krishna, PW. 3 Jagdish Prasad, PW.7 Gopal Singh, PW. 8 Gopal Lal and PW. 11 Satya Narayan, it is proved that in this case provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with. 22. That apart, it is not disputed that there is no specific form prescribed or intended for conveying the information required to be given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. What is necessary is that the accused should be made aware of the existence of his right to be searched in presence of one of the officers named in the section itself . Since, no specific mode or manner is prescribed or intended, the Court has to see the substance and not the form of intimation. Whether the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been met is a question which is to be decided on the facts of each case and there cannot be any sweeping generalization and/or strait-jacket formula. 23. Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not involve any self -incrimination. It is only a procedure required to protect the rights of an accused being made aware of the existence of his right to be searched if so required by him before any of the specified officers. The object seems to be to ensure that at a later stge the accused does not take a plea that the articles were planted on him or that those were not recovered from him. 24. In support of his contention regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the aforesaid authorities in which it has been held that if the accused is not informed about his right to have his search before a gazetted officer or Magistrate, the same amounts to non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS. However, in the present case the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are not at all applicable as in the present case it has been held that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been fully complied with and the accused appellant has been informed about his right to have his search in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, but he himself in his own hand-writing gave his consent to have his search in presence of Dy. S.P. Therefore, in the present case, the accused appellant has been given option under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the prosecution has proved the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant would not be helpful to the accused appellant. 9.25. The Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Krishna Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), State of Rajasthan vs. Ramchandra (Supra) and State of Orissa vs. Rajendra Tripathy (Supra), has held that informing accused of his right to demand search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate is an additional safeguard to ensure fairness and use of any specific words to convey information about this right is not necessary. In the present case also, the petitioner has been given information about his right to have his search in presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate and the accused appellant himself has given his consent to have his search before the Dy. S.P. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with in this case. 10.26. In view of aforesaid findings, the first argument raised by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant is rejected. 127. So far as receipt of sample in metallic container is concerned, a bare perusal of recovery memo (Exhibit P/16) reveals that in the said memo it has nowhere been mentioned that the sample was taken in plastic box. PW. 3 Jagdish Prasad in his cross-examination has also not stated that sample of heroin was taken in plastic bag. Further more, a bare perusal of FSL report (Exhibit P/20) reveals that said sample was received from Sh. Ajay Singh in respect of FIR in question. In the FSL report also it has been mentioned that the seals were intact. PW. 3 Jagdish Prasad in his cross-examination has also not stated that sample of heroin was taken in plastic bag. Further more, a bare perusal of FSL report (Exhibit P/20) reveals that said sample was received from Sh. Ajay Singh in respect of FIR in question. In the FSL report also it has been mentioned that the seals were intact. It appears that due to inadvertance, the witnesses have stated that the sample was taken in plastic bag. However, these are minor contradictions and cannot effect the veracity of the prosecution story. 128. So far as link evidence is concerned, it may be stated that PW. 3 Jagdish Prasad in his statement has clearly stated that he took two samples marked A-1 and A-2 from the seized article. PW. 2 Roop Kishore Chaturvedi (I.O.) in his statement has stated that the samples were re-sealed at the police station and a memo (Ex. P/1) was prepared. He further stated that the sample (A/1) was sent to the FSL through Sh. Ajay Singh in sealed condition. The Malakhana Incharge Sh. Umrao Mohd. (PW. 6) has stated that on 211.2000, he received the seized article through Sh. Roop Kishore Chaturvedi which was duly sealed. Thereafter he entered the said article in Malkhana Register. Thereafter on 211.2000, he sent the said sample to the S.P. Office vide letter dated 211.2000 (Exhibit P/9) for forwarding the same to the FSL and on the same date, the sample was forwarded to the FSL through Sh. Ajay Singh which is evident from endorsement made at the back of the letter dated 211.2000 (Exhibit P/9). The malkhana entry (Exhibit 21) has also been proved PW. 4 Ajay Singh has also stated that he took the sample on 211.2000 and deposited the same in FSL at Jaipur on 211.2000. Therefore, no link evidence is missing and the prosecution has established the fact that the sample remained in self -same condition right from the time of seizure till it reached the Chemical Examiner. So far as interpolation in Malkhana entry (Exhibit P/21) is concerned, the same appears to be bona fide and it appears that on account of inadvertance, the word " " has been written which has been corrected and word "heroin" has been written. 129. So far as interpolation in Malkhana entry (Exhibit P/21) is concerned, the same appears to be bona fide and it appears that on account of inadvertance, the word " " has been written which has been corrected and word "heroin" has been written. 129. So far as contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are concerned, the same are minor in nature and do not effect the prosecution story at all. Similarly non-production of Sh. Pramod Mohan Sharma in whose presence recovery was made, is also not of much relevance as from the other evidence as discussed above, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 130. For the reasons mentioned above the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara was right in convicting the accused appellant Tulsi Prasad S/O Laxmi Prasad for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. The findings of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge are based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence on record. I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings of conviction recorded by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara. Hence, no interference is called for with the findings of the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Bhilwara and the present Jail appeal is to be dismissed and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 211.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 12/2001 is affirmed.