JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. On the basis of recovery of 200 gms of poppy straw and illicit liquor, recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared on the instructions of PW 2 R.P.Singh, SO, Ukhimath. According to the recovery memo dated 28.03.2002, the police personnel received information through an informer, at 11:15 am, that an unnumbered car was going from Sukari to Godhikhal, in which a few women were also sitting. The informer informed that they were involved in transportation of illicit liquor. Police personnel tried to contact some public witnesses, but they (public witnesses) were not ready to be the witness to recovery of illicit liquor. Police personnel took the search of each other to ensure that they were not having any incriminating article in their possession. A Ceilo car, without registration number, came and was stopped by the police personnel. A few women were sitting on the rear seat of the car. The driver of the vehicle informed the police personnel that he was having poppy straw, which he has kept for his own use. 2. PW 2 directed subordinate police personnel to contact any gazetted officer or a Magistrate, but the driver of the vehicle stated that he has full confidence in police personnel and, therefore, they were at liberty to search him. He said that he has kept poppy straw for his own personal use. He himself took out 200 gms of poppy straw from the pocket of his t-shirt. 12 bottles of English wine were recovered from the possession of the women, who were sitting on the back seat of the car. None of them could show the paper to keep the poppy straw/ English wine in their possession. Specimen sample of 50 gms of poppy straw was taken out. The vehicle was seized and challaned under the Excise Act and Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the vehicle was challand under Section 18/20 of the Excise Act. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared on the spot. First information report was lodged against three accused persons including the appellant on 28.03.2002, at 4:04 pm, at Rudraprayag. The incident allegedly took place on 28.03.2002, at 1:00 pm. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 30 kms. The FIR was lodged on the same day, at 4:00 pm, therefore, there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report. The incident allegedly took place on 28.03.2002, at 1:00 pm. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 30 kms. The FIR was lodged on the same day, at 4:00 pm, therefore, there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report. At present, the Court is only concerned with the involvement of the appellant under Section 18/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. After the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 18/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Cons. Arjun Singh, PW 2 R.P.Singh, PW 3 Cons. Ranjeet Singh and PW 4 Vishram Singh (I.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. After considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag) found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 18/27 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was required to undergo three months’ additional rigorous imprisonment, vide judgment and order dated 28.05.2003. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order, present Criminal Appeal was preferred by the convict-appellant. 4. PW 1 is a formal witness, who, on the basis of recovery memo, registered the first information report against the accused and proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-1), an entry of which was made in G.D. (Ext. Ka-2). 5. PW 2 is the main witness, who, in his examination-in-chief, supported the entire prosecution story, a detailed description of which has already been given by this Court in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. It is not necessary to reproduce the contents of his examination-in-chief, in as much as, the same will be nothing, but the repetition of the contents of the recovery memo. PW 2 also proved copy of G.D. of rawangi (Ext. Ka-3), recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4), specimen seal (Ext. Ka-5), and stated that poppy straw (material Ext.-1) was found from the possession of the accused-appellant. PW 2 also proved copy of G.D. of rawangi (Ext. Ka-3), recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4), specimen seal (Ext. Ka-5), and stated that poppy straw (material Ext.-1) was found from the possession of the accused-appellant. PW 2 stated that he informed about the recovery of poppy straw from the possession of the accused-appellant to the Superintendent of Police. He also elaborated, in his cross-examination, that he tried to procure the attendance of the public witnesses, but to no avail. He wrote the weight of poppy straw tentatively. He denied the fact that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. 6. PW 3 was also a witness to the recovery of 200 gms of poppy straw from the possession of the accused-appellant. He also stated that the poppy straw was divided into two parts. 50 gms was kept as specimen (to be sent to the FSL) and remaining 150 gms was kept separately. He was also a witness of recovery memo. He also stated that an attempt was made to procure the attendance of the public witnesses, without meeting any success. In his cross-examination, PW 3 also stated about the recovery of English wine from the possession of co-accused, but it is not necessary for this Court to discuss all these things in this judgment, in as much as, the accused-appellant was, allegedly, found in possession of 200 gms of poppy straw and, therefore, this Court shall confine only to the same, in this judgment. 7. PW 4 was the Investigating Officer of the case, who recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-6), proved G.D. (Ext. Ka-7, report of FSL (Ext. Ka-8) and after being satisfied that the accused has committed the crime, submitted a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-9) against him. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see the case property, in as much as, the same was deposited in the malkhana. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 67, has observed as below: “7. We are in this case concerned only with the question whether PW1, the officer who had conducted the search on the person of the appellant had followed the procedure laid down under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 67, has observed as below: “7. We are in this case concerned only with the question whether PW1, the officer who had conducted the search on the person of the appellant had followed the procedure laid down under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. On this question, there were conflicts of views by different Benches of this Court and the matter was referred to a five Judge Bench. This Court in Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609 , answered the question, stating that it is imperative on the part of the officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. This Court also held that it is mandatory on the part of the authorized officer to make the accused aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him and this mandatory provision requires strict compliance. The suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision, but so far as the officer concerned, an obligation is cast on him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to apprise the person of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The question, as to whether this procedure has been complied with or not, in this case the deposition of PW1 assumes importance, which reads as follows: ‘He was apprised while telling the reason of being searched that he could be searched before any Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer if he wished. He gave his consent in written and said that I have faith on you, you can search me. Fard regarding apprising and consent is Ex.P- 3 on which I put my signature from A to B and the accused put his signature from C to D. E to F is the endorsement of the consent of the accused and G to H is signature, which has been written by the accused.’ The above statement of PW1 would clearly indicate that he had only informed the accused that he could be searched before any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer if he so wished. The fact that the accused person has a right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was not made known to him. We are of the view that there is an obligation on the part of the empowered officer to inform the accused or the suspect of the existence of such a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him. Only if the suspect does not choose to exercise the right in spite of apprising him of his right, the empowered officer could conduct the search on the body of the person.” 9. It was also observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 550, as follows: “16. The above Panchnama indicates that the appellants were merely asked to give their consent for search by the police party and not apprised of their legal right provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to refuse/to allow the police party to take their search and opt for being searched before the Gazetted officer or by the Magistrate. In other words, a reading of the Panchnama makes it clear that the appellants were not apprised about their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but consent was sought for their personal search. Merely asking them as to whether they would offer their personal search to him, i.e., the police officer or to gazetted officer may not satisfy the protection afforded under Section 50 of the NDPS Act as interpreted in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 .” 10. It was also observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 609, that: “29. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the object with which right under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way of a safeguard, has been conferred on the suspect, viz. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the object with which right under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way of a safeguard, has been conferred on the suspect, viz. to check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimise the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies, it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. We have no hesitation in holding that in so far as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires a strict compliance. Failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search. Thereafter, the suspect may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under the said provision. 31. We are of the opinion that the concept of “substantial compliance” with the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act introduced and read into the mandate of the said Section in Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa, (2000) 1 SCC 707 , and Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P., (2004) 2 SCC 449, is neither borne out from the language of sub-section (1) of Section 50 nor it is in consonance with the dictum laid down in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 . Needless to add that the question whether or not the procedure prescribed has been followed and the requirement of Section 50 had been met, is a matter of trial. It would neither be possible nor feasible to lay down any absolute formula in that behalf.” 11. It will also be useful to reproduce herein paragraph 27 of the decision of State of Delhi vs. Ram Avtar alias Rama, (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 207, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “27. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused, compliance thereto should be strictly construed. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused, compliance thereto should be strictly construed. As already held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra), the theory of ‘substantial compliance’ would not be applicable to such situations, particularly where the punishment provided is very harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudices against the suspect. The safeguard cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be construed in its proper perspective, compliance thereof must be ensured. The law has provided a right to the accused, and makes it obligatory upon the officer concerned to make the suspect aware of such right. The officer had prior information of the raid; thus, he was expected to be prepared for carrying out his duties of investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. While discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that information regarding the existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. If such information is incomplete and ambiguous, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would cause prejudice to the accused, and, therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that present criminal appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order rendered by this Court on 4th March 2014, in Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 2002, Sher Singh v. State of Uttaranchal. A few paragraphs of said judgment and order are being gainfully reproduced here-in-below for reference: (18) It was held in Sarju alias Ramu vs State of U.P., 2009 (5) Supreme 730 , that since the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Act are harsh in nature, therefore, the procedural safeguards contained therein must scrupulously be complied with. (19) There is yet another aspect of the matter. In the instant case, no information was given to the immediate official superior that 500 gms. of contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. It was incumbent upon the police personnel to have informed the immediate official superior of such recovery. (19) There is yet another aspect of the matter. In the instant case, no information was given to the immediate official superior that 500 gms. of contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. It was incumbent upon the police personnel to have informed the immediate official superior of such recovery. No document has been brought on record to show that the immediate official superior was informed of the recovery of contraband and subsequent arrest of the accused. Learned trial court, therefore, committed a manifest error of law in holding that the information to the immediate official superior was not necessary. Although PW3 stated in his cross-examination that intimation to the immediate official superior was given after the arrest of the accused, but no such document has been brought on record by the prosecution. PW5 admitted that no such information was given to the immediate official superior before the arrest of the accused. (20) The alleged recovery from the possession of accused-appellant, therefore, becomes doubtful. In such a situation, will it not be proper to grant the accused benefit of doubt?” 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment and order passed by this Court on 26 May 2015, in Criminal Appeal no. 201 of 2003, Madan Lal and State of Uttaranchal and submitted that the present criminal appeal is also squarely covered by said judgment and order. 14. It will also be worthwhile to mention the provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, here-in-below: “50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted. – (1) When any officer duly authorised 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 authorised 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 drug 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 seventy two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 15. The case of the accused-appellant is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the decisions of this Court. Mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been observed by breach by Police personnel in the instant case. 16. This Court need not say anything further. Suffice will it be to say that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. 17. Criminal appeal is, therefore, allowed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the court below is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent to the Court below for compliance.