JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.03.2019, passed by IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, in Special Case No. 10 of 1990, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 20(2) N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station G.R.P. Moghalsarai, District Varanasi and sentencing the accused-appellant under the aforesaid section for ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.03.1990, Excise Inspector R.B. Singh of Sector-3, Moghalsarai along with his colleague Ali Ahmad Siddiqui, Ram Kewal, Moti Lal, Radhey Shyam Pandey and Bhajan Lal was at platform no. 6 of Railway Station, Moghalsarai, District Varanasi in connection with checking of transportation of illegal drugs through railway. The Excise Inspector received information from an informer that two ladies, sitting in a general compartment of the Train No. 3007 Up Hawrah-Delhi Express, were in possession of Charas. The Excise Inspector and his team went inside the general compartment of the train with witnesses Satish Kumar, Pappu and Bachau Lal who were present in the compartment itself and ready to be witnesses of the recovery. In the presence of witnesses, the Excise Officials found the two ladies concealing something in their laps. Thereafter, on search being conducted, in the presence of the witnesses 2 Kgs. of Charas which wasWh concealed by the accused-appellant Smt. Champa Devi in a polythene bag was recovered. The Charas was kept in the form of candles in three packets covered with a paticote kept in an air bag. 3. The recovery memo was prepared by Excise Inspector on the spot in the presence of the witnesses and the recovered Charas was sealed in the above air bag itself. After completing the formalities of the recovery, the accused Smt. Champa Devi along with other lady Smt. Sonia Devi who was also found in possession of 1 Kg. Charas were brought to the Police Station G.R.P., Mughalsarai, where they were lodged and recovered articles were deposited. 4. Charges were framed by the court under Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act, which was denied by the accused. The present accused-appellant was tried for the said charge. 5. In support, the prosecution has examined PW-1 R.B. Singh who has proved the memo as Ext Ka-1. 4. Charges were framed by the court under Section 20(2) of the NDPS Act, which was denied by the accused. The present accused-appellant was tried for the said charge. 5. In support, the prosecution has examined PW-1 R.B. Singh who has proved the memo as Ext Ka-1. PW-2 Bachau Lal who is said to be an independent witness of the aforesaid recovery also supported the prosecution story. Report Ext Ka-3 and test report Ext Ka-2 are also on record. Statement of accused recorded under section 313 of the Code. The accused has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in defence. 6. After hearing the prosecution side and the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and perusing the evidence on record, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment, the convicted appellant has filed the present criminal appeal stating that the conviction and sentence are against the evidence on record and contrary to law. There was no compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act. The conviction was too severe and, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled for acquittal. 8. Heard Ms. Sakshi Kesarwani, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Shri L.D. Rajbhar, learned AGA and perused the record. 9. The charge being based on recovery of illegal charas, it has to be seen that recovery was made by observing due procedure. PW1 R.B. Singh (Excise Inspector) who is recovery officer in this case has proved the recovery memo as Ext. Ka1, test report Ext. Ka2 and complaint as Ext. Ka3 and has stated that on 20.3.1990 he was present at platform no 6 at Moghalsarai Railway station when 3007 up Hawrah Delhi Express arrived at the platform. He and his companions Constables Ali Ahmad Siddiqi, Motilal and Rajbahadur entered into a general bogie of the train for checking of psychotropic substances. The accused Champa Devi was sitting on a seat with an airbag in her lap who seeing the police got amazed. On suspicion, her airbag was searched before three passengers namely, Bachaulal, Pappu and Satish Kumar and two kg charas was recovered from the airbag which was kept in a polythene rapped in a used yellow petticoat. The accused Champa Devi was sitting on a seat with an airbag in her lap who seeing the police got amazed. On suspicion, her airbag was searched before three passengers namely, Bachaulal, Pappu and Satish Kumar and two kg charas was recovered from the airbag which was kept in a polythene rapped in a used yellow petticoat. Recovery Memo was prepared before witnesses and was read over to them and accused who signed the same and the accused put her thumb impression thereon. A copy thereof was given to her. The accused did not show license for keeping charas on being asked to show and therefore, she was arrested and the recovered charas was sealed. He has further stated that sample of recovered charas was taken and sent for chemical examination. The charas along with airbag has been proved as Ext.I, II and III by PW1. 10. In the cross-examination, PW1 has stated that he had earlier information that two women sitting in that bogie are carrying charas. Recovery was undertaken in 57 minutes and because the train was to depart, the accused and other woman were caused to come down from train and the witnesses who were stepping down from the train on that station were requested to stay for completing the process in relation thereto. He prepared the recovery memo and completed the process on the platform itself. 11. PW2 Bachaulal who is public witness of the recovery, has stated that it was 22.30 AM in the midnight and he had gone to Moghulsarai Railway Station to drop his master and got him seated in the train at platform no. 6 and as there was some time in the departure of train, he sat in the train. Inspector Sahib asked him to be witness of recovery so that the two women who were carrying charas may be searched. Thereafter, airbag of the accused was searched from which 2 kg charas was recovered. Since the train was going to depart, therefore, accused was caused to come down from the train and the search was completed on the platform. The charas was sealed and recovery memo was prepared and was read over to them and he and other witnesses signed on it and the accused put her thumb impression on it. The witness has identified his signature on recovery memo which is Ext. Ka1. The charas was sealed and recovery memo was prepared and was read over to them and he and other witnesses signed on it and the accused put her thumb impression on it. The witness has identified his signature on recovery memo which is Ext. Ka1. The witness has been cross-examined but nothing has come out on the basis of which the recovery can be doubted. 12. It has been stated by PW1 that sample of recovered charas was taken and sent for chemical examination. The Chemical Examination Report 23.1.1991 is on record and the recovered article has been found to be charas. The learned trial court has rightly concluded that there is no reason to disbelieve the report. Therefore, it has been established that recovered article from the accused was charas for which the accused was not able to show license. 13. The arguments which were raised from the side of accused to challenge the validity of recovery were appropriately dealt with the learned trial court. Ticket from the accused was recovered from Patna to Kanpur which shows that accused was traveling in the train. PW2 stated on oath that his platform ticket was with his master who was sitting in the train. Non-mentioning of the child of accused in the recovery memo who was with her is not an error which can go to the root of the recovery. The allegation of defence that PW2 was a pocket witness being servant of a person who happens to be a contractor of Excise Department has been denied by the witness and moreover, no such evidence was brought on record by defence in support of this allegation. The learned trial court rightly turned down the defence argument that there was contradiction in the statement of two witnesses as to place of recovery whether charas was recovered from accused in the general bogie or on the platform because the process was completed on the platform no. 6 where the train was standing and since it had to depart from the station and, therefore, the process was completed and the statement of PW2 cannot be read in contradiction but as supplement to the evidence and considering the totality of evidence and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the finding of the court on this point. 14. 6 where the train was standing and since it had to depart from the station and, therefore, the process was completed and the statement of PW2 cannot be read in contradiction but as supplement to the evidence and considering the totality of evidence and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the finding of the court on this point. 14. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the Excise team did not comply with the mandatory provision of section 50 of the NDPS Act. Section 50 is as follows: “Section 50: Conditions under which search of person shall be conducted : (1) When any officer duly authorized 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 Gazettted 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 subsection (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. (5) When an officer duly authorized 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 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under subsection (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. Section 50 provides reasonable safeguard to the accused before search of his person is made by an officer authorized under section 42 of the Act to conduct search. In State of Punjab Vs. Section 50 provides reasonable safeguard to the accused before search of his person is made by an officer authorized under section 42 of the Act to conduct search. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 (Five Judge Bench), it was settled by the supreme court that search of person under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not include search & recovery from bag, briefcase and container etc. Sec. 50 applies where personal search of a person is involved. In T. Hamza vs State of Kerala, (2000) 1 SCC 300 , it has been clarified that section 50 has been incorporated to provide statutory safeguard to lend credibility and fairness and to avoid arbitrariness keeping in view the severe punishment prescribed in the statute. It has been further clarified in Megh Singh vs State of Punjab, (2003) 8 SCC 666 , that section 50 applies only in case of personal search of a person and does not extend to search of a vehicle, container, bag or premises. In Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746 and Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2011 CrLJ 1738 (SC), the above view was further affirmed. 16. In Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 674 Where bags containing poppy husk were seized from truck in his the accused were sitting, it has been held by the Supreme Court that it was not a case of personal search of the accused and Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 was not attracted as Section 50 only applies in case of personal search of person and not applicable to search of vehicle, container, bag or premises. 17. In this instant case, the prosecution version is that the illegal charas was recovered from the accused from the bag she was carrying. It was not recovered from the search of her person. This fact has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, PW1 Excise Inspector R.B. Singh has stated that 2 kg charas was recovered from the bag which the accused was keeping in her lap and tried to conceal the same after seeing him. PW2 Bachaulal is the public witness of recovery and he has also stated that the charas was recovered from the bag of the accused. Therefore, section 50 is not applicable in the present case at all. 18. PW2 Bachaulal is the public witness of recovery and he has also stated that the charas was recovered from the bag of the accused. Therefore, section 50 is not applicable in the present case at all. 18. On the basis of above discussion, I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is liable to be upheld and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. The criminal appeal is dismissed. 20. It has been pointed out by both sides that the accused has been released from jail by order of the government granting remission after spending nearly five years in jail against the sentence awarded to her in this case. Report of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, court no. 2, Varanasi dated 18.6.2007 is on record according to which, as per report of Senior Superintendent, Model Jail (Nari Bandi Niketan), Lucknow convicted appellant Champa Devi wife of Yogendra Singh r/o Tatoliya (Raj Bazar), PS Motihari, District Motihari, Bihar has been released from jail on 26.1.1996 in compliance of GO no. 406/22.2.9517 (224)/95 dated24.1.1996. On receipt of this report, this court, referring to the report, passed following order- “Learned AGA is directed to place a copy of the said GO before this Court and a detailed report may be obtained from the concerned Jail Superintendent, directing him to explain the provision under which the accused-appellant had been released.” 21. Subsequent to above order, Superintendent, Model Jail, Lucknow has sent letter no. 1111/AR dated 30.10.2017 addressed to Sri Pradeep Kumar, Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad, a copy of which forwarded to Section Officer, Criminal Appeal Section, High Court, Allahabad in response to letter no. 25855 dated 23.10.2017 and to Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi in response to letter no. 660/AR/17662/AR/17 dated 26.10.2017. With this letter, the copy of conviction warrant of accused-appellant and certified copy of extract of Jail Register has been attached on which a similar endorsement is available. Copy of the aforesaid GO (certified) has been also attached granting remission for remaining sentence with endorsement on the back page that in pursuance thereof the accused-appellant has been released. A certified copy of personal bond of 5000/ executed by the accused-appellant has been also attached. 22. In view of the above, the accused-appellant Smt. Champa Devi is not required to be sent to jail to undergo remaining imprisonment. 23. The Amicus Curiae MS. A certified copy of personal bond of 5000/ executed by the accused-appellant has been also attached. 22. In view of the above, the accused-appellant Smt. Champa Devi is not required to be sent to jail to undergo remaining imprisonment. 23. The Amicus Curiae MS. Sakshi Kesarwani shall be paid Rs. Ten Thousands only for the assistance and legal service provided by her in conducting this appeal for the accused-appellant. 24. Office is directed to transmit the lower court record along with copy of this judgment to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance.