JUDGMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. This is an appeal preferred by the solitary appellant (in custody) against judgment of conviction for the offence under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- failing which further undergo R.I. for one year, as awarded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah on 25th April, 2013 in Trial No. 19 of 2005 arising out of Unit Case No. 7/Custom/Bettiah/05-06. 2. At the out set it is relevant to mention that this case has chequered history. Initially the appellant and co-accused Pradeep Singh @ Tilakraj were tried for the offence under Section 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act by the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, West Champaran at Bettiah and both the accused were convicted and sentenced, but in appeal preferred by them order of remand was passed only on the ground that the then trial Court had no jurisdiction to try such case. Consequently, matter was transferred to the Court of regular Additional Sessions Judge where initially charge under Section 22(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed and at the time of argument fresh charge was framed under Section 20(B)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act on 6th February, 2013. At this stage as is evident from the order sheet of the Court below, on behalf of the accused persons further cross-examination of the witnesses already examined was declined and to be doubly sure of such declination learned counsel for the appellant further submitted supplementary affidavit in this appeal indicating that there is no need to cross-examine the witnesses already examined. 3. The prosecution case, as revealed from Ext. 2, the official complaint filed by one Kameshwar Prasad Inspector of Custom (P), Circle-Bettiah, PW 1 is that on some confidential information received by the Superintendent of Custom Sri Krishna Prasad, PW 2 at about ten hours on 26th April, 2005 that two persons, one lady and another gents are travelling by 4047 Up Satyagrah Express running between Raxaul to Delhi in Bogi No. 14855 with some contraband goods and the lady wearing a red/greenish saree and Red blouse, whereas, gents wearing a black jeans paint and check shirt and charas is being carried by the lady. On such information a preventive team was organized and on the instruction of PW 2 all rushed at the railway station where a request was made to the railway authorities for extension of stoppage of train. However, only ten minutes was provided during which on arrival of train the raiding team entered into the Bogi and on the basis of information located their target and requested them to declare if anything is concealed but it was refused and with the help of co-lady passenger female accused was searched and it was detected that something is tied with her waist. Taking into consideration shortage of time and situation the raiding party caught both the accused persons and came at the custom office where in a room again lady was requested to hand over the articles concealed by her. She went in the toilet and handed over contraband articles and on weighing it was found to be 4 kg. Thereafter sample was sealed before the witnesses after taking the signature of witnesses and accused persons and they further declared their names and addresses and according to male accused he was deputed by one Manoj Kumar, owner of contraband articles just to hand over the same to the female accused. Sample etc. were prepared and sent for chemical examination. Meanwhile, both the accused persons were produced before the competent Court and sent them to custody. 4. In order to substantiate the charges, on behalf of the prosecution altogether six witnesses were produced besides producing the following documentary evidence :- Ext. 1- Seizure list. Ext. 2- Prosecution report. Ext. 3- History sheet of Shakuntala Sharma. Ext. 3/1- History sheet of Pradeep Singh. Ext. 4- Punchnama. Ext. 5- Arrest memo of Pradeep Singh. Ext. 5/1- Arrest memo of Shakuntala Sharma. Ext. 6- Forwarding letter. Ext. 7- Chemical report from Gajipur. Ext. 8- Confessional statement of Shakuntala Sharma. Ext. 8/1- Confessional statement of Pradeep Sharma. Ext. 9- Interrogatory statement of Shakuntala Sharma. Ext. 9/1- Interrogatory statement of Pradeep Sharma. In defence there is neither any oral nor documentary evidence. 5. However, considering the materials available the trial Court convicted and sentenced the female accused in the manner aforesaid and acquitting the co-male accused. 6. Ext. 8/1- Confessional statement of Pradeep Sharma. Ext. 9- Interrogatory statement of Shakuntala Sharma. Ext. 9/1- Interrogatory statement of Pradeep Sharma. In defence there is neither any oral nor documentary evidence. 5. However, considering the materials available the trial Court convicted and sentenced the female accused in the manner aforesaid and acquitting the co-male accused. 6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case of false implication in a case initiated with ulterior motive wherein none of the mandatory requirements of law as contemplated under N.D.P.S. Act has been fulfilled. At no point of time there was any compliance of Section 50 of the Act besides Sections 52, 53-A etc. Apart from the above in view of factual discrepancies in the evidence the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel representing Union of India tried his level best to support findings of the Court below and the submissions that there is huge recovery of contraband articles which was voluntarily produced by the appellant during course of search, but inspite of his best efforts there was no satisfactory report available to him to the submission of noncompliance mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act. 8. Out of six witnesses, PW 1 Rameshwar Prasad is the complainant and member of the raiding team staged the prosecution case and proved Exts.-1 and 9 to 9/1, but inspite of having sufficient time to arrange the lady as one of the member of the team he simply said due to non-deployment of any female constable of his department no such lady was accompanied to the team but on the question that no attempt was made to get any lady from the concerned department, there is no explanation. Moreover, he is completely silent about any intimation being given to the appellant or co-accused about right provided to them under the Act to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer. Even he is also silent about any preparation of inventory of seized articles by a Magistrate for preparation of sampling etc. in his presence. 9. PW 2 Sri Krishna Prasad, is Superintendent of Custom and member of the raiding team. According to him in the compartment of train with the help of co-lady passenger appellant was sent to toilet where the co-passenger found some articles tied in her waist. in his presence. 9. PW 2 Sri Krishna Prasad, is Superintendent of Custom and member of the raiding team. According to him in the compartment of train with the help of co-lady passenger appellant was sent to toilet where the co-passenger found some articles tied in her waist. Accordingly steps were taken as stated by PW 1. He is also silent like PW 1 on the point of compliance of mandatory provisions of law. 10. PW 3 Narendra Sharma and PW 4 Shambhu Nath Gupta, the two Havildars and members of the raiding team have also said similar version as their predecessor and senior have stated. 11. PW 5 Badri Paswan, another Havildar remain stayed at the platform so he is silent about the happening inside the compartment but stated what ever done after taking two culprits out of the train and bringing at the custom office as stated by other witnesses like PW 1 Rameshwar Prasad and another Havildars as also his predecessors. 12. The facts and circumstances discussed above• clearly indicates that mandatory requirement of law as contemplated under Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with as the law is very much clear on the point. This defect alone completely vitiates the trial and conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot sustain under law. Section 50 of the Act reads as such:- "50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.-(1) When any officer duly authorized under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Section 42 or Section 43, he shall if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (5) When an officer duly authorized under Section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within a seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior." 10. Accordingly, in the instant case also conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside and appeal is allowed and the appellant is ordered to be set free at once if not behind the Bar in any other case. Appeal allowed.