JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary, Additional Government Advocate, for the State/respondent. 3. On due consideration, urgency application no.295 of 2013 is allowed. 4. Heard on the merits of petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel, it appears that about 15 kilogram of poppy straw (DODA Powder) was recovered from the possession of the applicants. The main contention of learned counsel is that the compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) has not been made. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following authorities: - 1. “Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 981 2. Myla Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 686" 6. On the other hand, as regards the compliance of Section 50 of the Act, the following judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court are also worthy to be considered: - 7. In the case of Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. 1166, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that if nothing was recovered from the person of accused and poppy straw was recovered from the bag which he was holding, in that case, there was no question of following procedure u/s 50 so as to inform the accused about the search. It was further held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act are directory, hence violation of these provisions will not ipso facto vitiate the trial. 8. Further, even the Full Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2001 Sc.Cr.R. 884, has held that the Court while construing such provisions strictly should not interpret it so literally so as to render its compliance impossible. If in a case, the following of mandate strictly results in delay in trapping an accused, which may lead the accused to escape, then prosecution case should not be thrown out. It was further held out that when police party was on patrol duty i.e. on motion in a jeep then communication to the superior, before proceeding to apprehend the accused, is not understandable. Had they (Police) not done so (to proceed for the arrest) immediately the opportunity of seizure and arrest would have been lost. It was further held out that when police party was on patrol duty i.e. on motion in a jeep then communication to the superior, before proceeding to apprehend the accused, is not understandable. Had they (Police) not done so (to proceed for the arrest) immediately the opportunity of seizure and arrest would have been lost. It was further held that communication orally is not a compliance u/s 50 and thus, oral communication is also valid u/s 50 of the said Act. 9. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the argument put forth by learned counsel does not have any bearing in the eyes of law. 10. For the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Petition is dismissed accordingly.