JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. SSI Rajpal Singh of PS Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, lodged a first information report against the accused-appellant Smt. Maya Kaur on 22.09.1999, at 9:30 p.m., which was registered as case crime no. 1039 of 1999, under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985. The incident allegedly took place on the selfsame date at 7:20 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned was 1 kilometer, hence there appeared to be no delay in lodging the first information report. Said FIR was lodged on the basis of recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2), wherein it was stated that 2 & ½ kg of poppy straw was found from the possession of the accused-appellant on 22.09.1999, at 7:20 p.m. After the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-5) for the selfsame offence was filed against her (accused). 2. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused-appellant, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 SI Kalyan Kumar, PW 2 Constable Sompal Singh and PW 3 SI Moinuddin (I.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant, in reply to which she said that nothing was recovered from her possession and she was falsely implicated in the crime. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the accused was held guilty and was convicted under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2002. She was directed to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which, she was required to undergo three months’ further rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present Criminal Appeal was preferred by the appellant. 3. Prosecution led the evidence through PW 1 and PW 2. Both of the witnesses said that on 22.02.1999, they were posted in PS Kashipur. They were busy in maintaining the law and order situation. PW 1 and PW 2 met each other in the market. Both of them reached near Munshiram Chauraha. They saw a woman coming from the other side. PW 1 and PW 2 became suspicious. They stopped the woman at 7:20 p.m. She disclosed her name as Maya Kaur. She was having a bag. PW 1 and PW 2 met each other in the market. Both of them reached near Munshiram Chauraha. They saw a woman coming from the other side. PW 1 and PW 2 became suspicious. They stopped the woman at 7:20 p.m. She disclosed her name as Maya Kaur. She was having a bag. She disclosed that the bag contained poppy straw. She was offered to be searched by a gazetted officer/Magistrate, to which she declined. She gave consent-letter to this effect. SSI Rajpal Singh searched her. Poppy straw was fond inside the bag being carried by Maya Kaur. She could not place any license to keep the same. PW 1 prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) on the dictation of SSI Rajpal Singh (not examined). The police personnel including PW 1 and PW 2 appended their signatures on the same. Thumb impressions of the accused were got affixed on the recovery memo. The contraband was sealed. No independent witness could be procured. The contraband along with the accused was taken to the police station. Information to this effect was given to the superior officers of the police through R.T. Set. As said above, PW 3 SI Moinuddin was the investigating officer, who, after obtaining the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and being satisfied that the accused committed the offence, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued, among other things, that the appellant being a female, was not searched by a female constable or female sub-inspector or for that matter, female police. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that she was searched by SSI Rajpal Singh (not-examined), as told to the Trial Court by PW 1 and PW 2. 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that whenever it is necessary, to cause a female to be searched, the search shall be made by another female with strict regard to decency. Sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act casts a mandatory duty upon the police personnel that no female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. 6. Although the appellant was not personally searched, yet sub-section (2) of Section 51 of Cr. P.C. and sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act relate to search and not necessarily to personal search. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the provisions of Cr. 6. Although the appellant was not personally searched, yet sub-section (2) of Section 51 of Cr. P.C. and sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act relate to search and not necessarily to personal search. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the provisions of Cr. P.C. and NDPS Act were observed by the police personnel by breach. SSI Rajpal Singh, who made a search and on whose dictation Ext. Ka-2 was prepared, did not appear before the Trial Court to put forward prosecution story. No independent witness was procured to support the prosecution version. 7. Although the prosecution story could be relied upon the sole testimony of the police personnel, but the quality of such evidence should be such so as to inspire confidence, which is lacking in the instant case and the Trial Court, therefore, acted upon the uninspiring piece of evidence of police witnesses. Learned Trial Court committed a mistake in holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. Prosecution evidence was not correctly appreciated by the Court below and, therefore, the same requires interference. 8. Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused-appellant is allowed. The impugned judgment and order, as also the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant is set aside. Appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. She need not surrender. 9. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be sent to the Court below for compliance.