JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2007 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The prosecution story is that on 27.09.2006 PW-2 ASI Rinchen Gyaltsen along with head constable Bala Ram, constable Sunil Kumar and PW-1 constable Teja Singh was present at Bharai on patrolling duty. At about 8.30 p.m., they saw one person coming from Bharai side and going towards Shishamati. On seeing the police officials, the said person became nervous, turned back and tried to run away. This aroused the suspicion of the police officials, who apprehended the said person, who on questioning disclosed his named to be Viney Kumar son of Hardesh Kumar (accused). The police officials suspected that the said person may be carrying some contraband. Efforts were made to associate independent witnesses, but no independent witnesses were found. Thereafter, PW-2 ASI Rinchen Gyaltsen gave his personal search to the accused and then conducted the search of the accused. On the search of the accused, a small packet (pudia) was found in the right pocket of his pant which contained a white powder. The police suspected that it was heroin. Two samples of one gram each were drawn and thereafter both the samples and the remaining heroin was sealed in three separate packets bearing seal impression ‘A’ and N.C.B form was filled on the spot. Other codal formalities were completed. One of the sample was sent for analysis to the C.F.S.L., Chandigarh and the Chemical Analyst vide his report Ex.PQ opined that the sample was of heroin. On this basis, the accused was challaned. 3. It is not necessary to discuss the entire evidence because we intend to dispose of the appeal on one short ground i.e. non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. Admittedly, this is a case of personal search and the accused had to be informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 3. It is not necessary to discuss the entire evidence because we intend to dispose of the appeal on one short ground i.e. non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. Admittedly, this is a case of personal search and the accused had to be informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. No memo in this regard has been prepared and even the Investigating Officer when he appeared in the witness box has not stated a word that the accused was informed of his right to get himself searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 4. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Baldev Singh, 1999(6) SCC 172 , has clearly held that the accused has a right to be made aware of his right to get searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Having regard to the Miranda clause as enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Miranda v. Arizona [384 US 436], the Constitution Bench held that, although, such communication itself may not necessarily be made in writing but as far as possible such communication should be made in the presence of some independent and respectable persons witnessing the arrest and search. It was thereafter held as follows: “57 On the basis of the reasoning and discussion above, the following conclusions arise: (1) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorized officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing. (2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 5. A three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat 2007 (1) SCC 433 noticed the aforementioned dicta laid by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh (Supra) and in no uncertain terms opined that the accused must be told of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. 6. A three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat 2007 (1) SCC 433 noticed the aforementioned dicta laid by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh (Supra) and in no uncertain terms opined that the accused must be told of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. 6. Thereafter, the Apex Court in Man Bahadur versus State of H.P. JT 2008 (10) SC 518 again followed the aforesaid judgments and held that not only the consent of the accused should be taken but the accused must also be informed of his right to get himself searched in the presence of the Magistrate. 7. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the accused was informed about his valuable right and there is a violation of Section 50 of the Act and on this short ground, the appeal is dismissed. The Bail Bonds of the accused are discharged.