Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the sole accused in C.C. No. 244 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court for EC & NDPS Cases, Madurai, and vide impugned judgment dated 27.03.2008, he stood tried and convicted for the commission of offence under Section 8(b) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and also ordered set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, has filed this appeal. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly narrated are as follows:- 2.1. PW.2 and 3 were the members of police party of Palani Taluk Police Station. They mounted surveillance on 5.4.2005 on morning hours to detect the commission prohibition of offences. At about 10.15 a.m on that day, they arrested the appellant/accused who was carrying 3 kgs of ganja. After drawing sample of 50 gms from the contraband, it was sealed and since no independent witnesses were available, mahazar was prepared under Ex.P.4 and signed by P.Ws.2 and 3 the Sub Inspector and the Head Contable. Thereafter, the appellant/accused was brought to Police Station and a case in Crime No.291 of 2005 was registered on 5.4.2005 for the for the commission of offence under Section 8C r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 2.2. P.W.4, after remanding the accused for judicial custody sent the samples after getting necessary permission from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Palani, and forwarded the same for chemical analysis and P.W.1 on testing the sample, has opined that the contraband is 'ganja' and issued a certificate, which was marked as Ex.P.3. P.W.4 has recorded the statement of P.W.1 on 10.09.2005 After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet charging the appellant/ accused for the commission of aforesaid offences. 3. The Special Court for EC & NDPS Cases, Madurai, on receipt of the final report, took it on file in C.C.No.244 of 2006 and issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, furnished him with copies of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C and after granting sufficient time, framed charges under Section 8C r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and questioned him and he pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. The prosecution in order to sustain their case has examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and marked M.Os. 1 and 2. 4. The appellant was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false. 5. On behalf of the appellant/accused, no oral and documentary evidence was recorded and no documents were marked. The trial court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced as stated above and hence this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 and also from Ex.P.4, it is not clear whether the contraband was seized from the bag which was seized from the person of the appellant/accused or from the bag carried by him and though the said point was urged before the trial court, it was not considered. The trial court on mis-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has erroneously came to the conclusion and convicted and sentenced the appellant and prays for interference. 7. Per contra, Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the trial court on proper consideration of oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded conviction and sentence and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and also perused the oral and documentary evidence and the original records. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2001 (3) SCC 28 considered the scope of Section 50 of NDPS Act and also taken into consideration the earlier decisions in State of Punjab Vs.Baldev Singh(1994 (6) SCC 172) and in State of Punjab Vs. Jasbir Singh( 1996 (1) SCC 288 ) held that an empowered officer or a duly authorized officer before conducting the search of the person of a suspect, on the basis of prior information it is imperative for him to inform his right under Section 50(1) of NDPS Act. It is further held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directory and violation of the said provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. It is further held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directory and violation of the said provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. However, the investigation officer cannot totally ignore these provisions and such a failure will have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence regarding the arrest of accused or seizure of the articles. 10. Admittedly, it is not made clear by the prosecution whether the contraband was seized from person of the appellant or from the bag and however the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P.4 would disclose the fact that the seizure was effected from the person of the appellant. As per ratio laid down in the above cited decision, non following of the procedure in Sections 50,52 and 57 of NDPS Act would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. However, the investigation officer cannot totally ignore these provisions and such a failure will have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence regarding the arrest of accused or seizure of the articles. 11. The testimony of P.W.4 would disclose that he has failed to follow the said procedure. The materials relied on by the prosecution, in the considered opinion of the court are also with many infirmities and inconsistencies and therefore, benefit of doubt is anyhow in favour of the appellant/accused. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed in the judgment dated 27.03.2008 in C.C.No.244 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges under Section 8C r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. The bail bond stands terminated and the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.