JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/State, laying challenge to judgment dated 03.10.2018, passed by learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur at Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 3-ST/7 of 2015, whereby the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was acquitted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”). 2. The key facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal can tersely be summarized as under : As per the prosecution story, on 17.01.2015, a police party of Police Station, Rajgarh, was on patrol duty in between Rajgarh and Neripul and a nakka was laid at place called Peripul. At about 08:55 a.m., a bus, having registration No. HP-71-3346, came from Neripul and it was en route Solan. The said bus was stopped for checking and the accused was found sitting on seat No. 26. Police conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered two polythene packets from his jacket. On checking, the said packets were found containing charas. The accused and the witnesses made to alight from the bus and the recovered contraband was weighed and it was found to be 280 grams. During the personal search of the accused police also recovered a mobile phone and two tickets of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 30/-. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities and the polythene packets containing charas were put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seals. The said parcel was taken into possession. Police also filled in NCB form, sample seal was drawn separately and seal after its use was handed over to witness Geeta Ram. Rukka was prepared by the police and sent to Police Station, Rajgarh, through Constable Rajesh Kumar, whereupon FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. Police prepared the spot map and photographs were also clicked. The accused alongwith the case property was brought to Police Station, where relevant columns of the NCB form were filled in. The parcel containing charas was resealed and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. The case property alongwith relevant documents was sent for scientific analysis to SFSL, Junga, and as per the report the sample was found to be the extract of cannabis. The parcel containing charas was resealed and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. The case property alongwith relevant documents was sent for scientific analysis to SFSL, Junga, and as per the report the sample was found to be the extract of cannabis. Police also seized the documents of the bus and special report was sent to SDPO, Rajgarh. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 03.10.2018, acquitted the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, hence the present appeal is preferred by the State. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Trial Court did not correctly appreciate the material, which has come on record and the judgment, as rendered by the learned Trail Court, is based on surmises and conjectures. He has further argued that it was a chance recovery, so the provisions of Section 50 of the ND&PS Act were not required to be complied with. He argued that the appeal, which has merits, be allowed and the judgment of the learned Trial Court be set aside and the accused be convicted after appreciating the facts and law to their right and true perspective. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, we have gone through the record carefully. After going through the records, it was found apt not to issue notice to the accused/respondent and the appeal is required to be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 7. The case of the prosecution is of chance recovery. Precisely, as per the prosecution story, on 17.01.2015, ASI Neelkanth (PW-11) alongwith Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-1), HHC Harinder Singh (PW-2) and HC Hari Chand (PW-4) was on patrolling duty and at place Peripul where they had laid a nakka. The police intercepted bus, bearing registration No.HP71-3346, and during checking of the bus, police also conducted personal search of the accused and recovered 280 grams of charas. Thus, the case of the prosecution is of chance recovery. 8. The police intercepted bus, bearing registration No.HP71-3346, and during checking of the bus, police also conducted personal search of the accused and recovered 280 grams of charas. Thus, the case of the prosecution is of chance recovery. 8. PW-1, Constable Rajesh Kumar, who was member of the patrolling party, deposed that on 17.01.2015, he alongwith HC Hari Chand, ASI Neelkanth, HHC Harinder laid nakka at Paravi Pul and at about 08:55 a.m. they stopped bus, having registration No. HP71-3346, which was coming from Neri bridge side. He has further deposed that there were only nine passengers in the bus. The person sitting on seat No. 26 was checked and told them that he is carrying beedis. As per this witness, during the checking of that person from left pocket of his jacket two polythene envelops were recovered. Police associated driver and conductor of the bus as witnesses and polythene envelops were found containing stick shaped black substance. The person disclosed his name as Deep Ram (accused herein) and on smelling the recovered substance was found to be charas. On weighment the contraband was found to be 280 grams. He has further deposed that personal search of the accused was also conducted, which yielded two bus tickets of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 30/- and one mobile phone. The contraband was sealed in a parcel of cloth and sealed with seal having impression 'T’ at seven places. Facsimile seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth and seal after its use was handed over to Shri Rajesh, conductor of the bus. IO filled in the NCB form and photographs were also clicked. IO prepared the rukka, which he handed over to MHC and MHC registered the FIR and handed over the case file to him. He brought the case file to the spot. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that search was conducted by ASI/IO Neelkanth. He feigned ignorance whether all the passengers of the bus were searched or not. He has further deposed that police personnel did not give their search to the accused prior to his search. 9. PW-2, HHC Harinder Singh, was also member of the patrolling party. He deposed that on 17.01.2015 he alongwith HC Hari Chand, ASI Neelkanth, laid nakka at Paravi Pul and at about 08:55 a.m. they stopped bus for checking, which was having registration No. HP-71-3346. 9. PW-2, HHC Harinder Singh, was also member of the patrolling party. He deposed that on 17.01.2015 he alongwith HC Hari Chand, ASI Neelkanth, laid nakka at Paravi Pul and at about 08:55 a.m. they stopped bus for checking, which was having registration No. HP-71-3346. He has further deposed that there were only nine passengers in the bus and during the checking of the bus the accused was found sitting on seat No. 26. I.O. conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered two polythene envelopes, which contained stick shaped black substance (charas). He has further deposed that thereafter personal search of the accused was conducted and two tickets of Rs. 10/- and Rs.30/- and a mobile phone were recovered. As per this witness, the recovered contraband, on weighment, was found to be 280 grams. This witness reiterated the version as given by PW-1, Constable Rajesh Kumar, qua the sampelling and seizure formalities. PW-2, in his crossexamination, deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted by the IO prior to the arrest of the accused and after clicking photographs. He has admitted that the police party and the witnesses did not give their personal search to the accused. He deposed that IO might have given option to the accused qua his legal right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. 10. PW-3, Shri Geeta Ram, deposed that he boarded bus, having registration No. HP-71-3346, from Dhamandar at 06:45 a.m. and he was sitting on seat No. 26. He has further deposed that at about 08:55 a.m., the bus was stopped by the police and 2-3 police personnel came inside the bus. All the passengers and their luggages were checked and during the search of the accused two polythene envelops were recovered from the jacket of the accused, so the accused was made to alight from the bus by the police. As per the version of this witness, police called him alongwith Rajesh (owner of the bus) and driver of the bus. Police obtained his signatures on many places. He has further deposed that IO on smelling told that the said envelops contain charas. The contraband was weighed and found to be 280 grams. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that police party and witnesses did not give their search to the accused. 11. Police obtained his signatures on many places. He has further deposed that IO on smelling told that the said envelops contain charas. The contraband was weighed and found to be 280 grams. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that police party and witnesses did not give their search to the accused. 11. PW-4, HC Hari Chand, who was member of the alleged patrolling party also reiterated the versions, as deposed by PW-1 and PW-2. Thus, his deposition, being repetitive in nature is deliberately left. PW-5, HC Anil Bhardwaj, deposed that on 17.01.2015 ASI Neelkanth deposited with him a mobile phone and qua this he made entry in the malkhana register. He has further deposed that on the same day SI/SHO Daulat Ram deposited with him a sealed parcel, having seven seals of impression 'T’ and five seals of impression 'D’ alongwith sample seal and NCB form. He has further deposed that he sent the said sealed parcel alongwith sample seal and NCB form to SFSL, Junga, through Lady Constable Neelam and receipt qua deposit of the same was handed over to him. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under his custody. 12. PW-6, Constable Amit Thakur, deposed that on 19.01.2015, ASI Neelkanth handed over to him the Special Report pertaining to the case, which he delivered to the Reader of SDPO, Police Station, Rajgarh. PW-7, HC Ram Lal, the then Reader to SDPO, Rajgarh, deposed that on 19.01.2015 Constable Amit Kumar No. 332 brought special, Ex. PW-7/A, which he produced before SDPO, who endorsed the same to him. He entered the Special Report in diary register and handed over a copy of the special report to Constable Amit Kumar. 13. PW-8, LC Neelam, deposed that on 19.01.2015, MHC Anil Kumar gave her a sealed parcel, which was sealed with seals having impression 'T’ and 'D’, alongwith sample seal, NCB form and other documents. He, on the same day, deposited the same in SFSL and obtained receipt thereof, which was handed over to MHC. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under her custody. PW-9, Constable Kuldeep Chauhan, deposed that on 17.01.2015 he entered the FIR (Ex. PW-9/A) in computer and issued CIPA certificate, Ex. PW-9/B. 14. PW-10, SI Daulat Ram, the then Additional SHO, Police Station Sadar, deposed that on 17.01.2015, vide daily dairy, Ex. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under her custody. PW-9, Constable Kuldeep Chauhan, deposed that on 17.01.2015 he entered the FIR (Ex. PW-9/A) in computer and issued CIPA certificate, Ex. PW-9/B. 14. PW-10, SI Daulat Ram, the then Additional SHO, Police Station Sadar, deposed that on 17.01.2015, vide daily dairy, Ex. PW-10/A, ASI Neelkanth alongwith other police personnel were on nakabandi duty. As per this witness, on that day he received rukka, mark 'X’, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-9/A was registered. He made endorsement, Ex. PW-10/B, on the rukka and the case file was given to Constable Rajesh Kumar. He has further deposed that on the same day ASI Neelkanth produced the case property alongwith sample seal 'T’ and NCB form, Ex. PW-10/C. He resealed the parcel with five seals having impression 'D’ and also filled relevant columns in NCB form. He prepared the resealing certificate, Ex. PW-10/E and deposited the case property alongwith sample seal, NCB form and other documents in malkhana. He has further deposed that he prepared the special report, Ex. PW-7/A, and sent the same, through Constable Amit Kumar, to SDPO, Rajgarh. After the receipt of chemical analysis report, Ex. PX, he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 15. PW-11, ASI Neelkanth, Investigating Officer, deposed that on 17.01.2015 he alongwith HC Hari Chand, HHC Harinder Singh was on patrol duty towards Neripul and they laid a nakka. He has further deposed that at about 08:55 a.m., they stopped bus, having registration No. HP71-3346, which was coming from Neripul and the route of the bus was Deothi Majhgaon to Solan. He has further deposed that they stopped a bus and started checking it. The accused was sitting on seat No. 26 and on his checking two polythene packets were found in his jacket, which as per the accused contained beedis. The accused was asked to show the beedis, but the packets contained some black substance. The recovered substance was found to be charas. Police associated Shri Sandeep Kumar, Rajesh Kumar (driver and conductor, respectively, of the bus) and one Shri Geeta Ram as witnesses. The accused was made to alight from the bus and the recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 280 grams. He has further deposed that during the search of the accused two tickets and a mobile phone were recovered. The accused was made to alight from the bus and the recovered contraband was weighed and found to be 280 grams. He has further deposed that during the search of the accused two tickets and a mobile phone were recovered. Thereafter, the contraband was put in the same polythene and put in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with seal having impression 'T’ at seven places. He prepared NCB form, Ex.PW-10/C on the spot and sample, Ex. PW-3/B, was separately taken on a piece of cloth. The contraband was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-3/A. This witness, in depth narrated the formalities completed by the police. 16. After going the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the present case is of a chance recovery of charas. Now, the prosecution evidence needs to be tested on the touchstone of its credibility and truthfulness, but before analyzing the same, in order to decide the innocence or guilt of the accused, we would like to deal with the law relating to Section 50 of the ND&PS Act. This Court in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2015, titled State of H.P. vs. Rakesh, has been held as under : “18. … … … … In fact Section 50 of the NDPS Act has a purpose and communication of the said right, which is ingrained in Section 50, to the person who is about to be searched is not an empty formality. Offences under the NDPS Act carry severe punishment, so the mandatory procedure, as laid down under the Act, has to be followed meticulously. Section 50 of the Act is just a safeguard available to an accused against the possibility of false involvement. Thus, communication of this right to the accused has to be clear, unambiguous and to the individual concerned. The purpose of this Section is to make aware the accused of his right and the whole purpose behind creating this right is effaced if the accused is not able to exercise the same for want of knowledge about is existence. This right cannot be ignored, as the same is of utmost importance to the accused.” The judgment (supra) is the result of settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as enunciated in State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 . 17. This right cannot be ignored, as the same is of utmost importance to the accused.” The judgment (supra) is the result of settled legal position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as enunciated in State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 . 17. Section 50 of the NDPS Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference : “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. (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 (2 of 1974). (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.]” 18. Now, it is to be seen that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has application in the present case or not. As per the prosecution story, on the relevant day a police team laid a nakka and they stopped a bus for checking. Now, it is to be seen that Section 50 of the NDPS Act has application in the present case or not. As per the prosecution story, on the relevant day a police team laid a nakka and they stopped a bus for checking. The accused was found sitting on seat No. 26 and on his personal search two envelops were recovered, which as per the accused contained beedis, but on checking the same were found stuffed with 280 grams of charas. As per the prosecution case, Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-1), HHC Harinder Singh (PW-2), HC Hari Chand (PW-4) and ASI Neelkanth (PW-11) were the members of the patrolling party. Thus, the testimonies of these witnesses are vital. PW-1, Constable Rajesh Kumar, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused was checked and during checking from the left pocket of his jacket two envelops of polythene were recovered, which, as per the accused contained beedis. The said packets on checking contained charas. Likewise, PW-2, HHC Harinder Singh, deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted by the IO and from his left pocket of jacket two polythene envelops were recovered, which as per the accused contained beedis. On checking the said packets were founds containing charas PW-4, HC Hari Chand, deposed that accused, who was sitting on seat No. 26, was searched by ASI Neelkanth and during his search, stick shaped substance was recovered from his pocket of the jacket, which, as per the accused were beedis. On checking the said packets contained charas. PW-11, ASI Neelkanth, Investigating Officer, deposed that the accused was found sitting on seat No. 26 of the bus and on his checking two polythene packets were recovered from the pocket of his jacket, which, as per the accused were containing beedis. He has further deposed that on checking of those polythene packets stick shaped black substance was recovered, which was charas. 19. The above key prosecution witnesses nowhere deposed that prior to the personal search of the accused he was given any option to be searched by the Gazetted Officer or by the Magistrate. The balanced analysis of the official prosecution witnesses shows that the police officials, prior to the checking of the accused, did not comply the mandatory provisions as ordained under Section 50 of the ND&PS Act. The balanced analysis of the official prosecution witnesses shows that the police officials, prior to the checking of the accused, did not comply the mandatory provisions as ordained under Section 50 of the ND&PS Act. The inalienable right of the accused, as provided by Section 50 of the ND&PS Act, was curtailed by the police. The present is a case of chance recovery and as per the prosecution story there were only nine passengers traveling in the bus. As per the testimonies of the official prosecution witnesses, accused was found sitting on seat No. 26 and on his checking he told the police that he is carrying beedis in his pocket. Such circumstances are more than enough to hold that the police had reasons to believe that the accused might be having or carrying narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substance, but even then the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not adhered to. 20. It is imperative to highlight the law, as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arif Khan alias Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2018 SC 2123 , wherein vide paras 19 to 23 it has been held as under : “19. The short question which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the search/recovery made by the police officials from the appellant (accused) of the alleged contraband (charas) can be held to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 20. In other words, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution was able to prove that the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was followed by the Police Officials in letter and spirit while making the search and recovery of the contraband "Charas" from the appellant (accused). 21. What is the true scope and object of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, what are the duties, obligation and the powers conferred on the authorities under Section 50 and whether the compliance of requirements of Section 50 are mandatory or directory, remains no more res integra and are now settled by the two decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2378 ) and Vijaysinh Chandubuha Jadeja ( AIR 2011 SC 77 ) (supra). 22. 22. Indeed, the latter Constitution Bench decision rendered in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja ( AIR 2011 SC 77 ) has settled the aforementioned questions after taking into considerations all previous case law on the subject. 23. Their Lordships have held in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja ( AIR 2011 SC 77 ) that the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 must be strictly complied with. It is held that it is imperative on the part of the Police Officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right under Section 50 to be searched only before a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is held that it is equally mandatory on the part of the authorized officer to make the suspect aware of the existence of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if so required by him and this requires a strict compliance. It is ruled that the suspect person may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but so far as the officer is concerned, an obligation is cast upon him under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to apprise the suspect of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. (See also Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (2) SCC 67 and Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi, 2011 (6) SCC 392 ) : ( AIR 2011 SC 1939 ).” The judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. As held above, the present is a case of chance recovery and the police had reasonable apprehension that the accused might have some contraband, but despite that the police did not comply the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of ND&PS Act. The object and purpose of Section 50 is to inform the person, who is to be searched, of his vital right to be searched by a magistrate or by a gazetted officer. Compliance of Section 50 cannot at all be given go by, as crimes under the NDPS Act provide stiffer punishments and, therefore, the procedure provided under the Act has to be followed meticulously. Indeed, Section 50 of the Act works as safeguard for the accused against false involvement. Compliance of Section 50 cannot at all be given go by, as crimes under the NDPS Act provide stiffer punishments and, therefore, the procedure provided under the Act has to be followed meticulously. Indeed, Section 50 of the Act works as safeguard for the accused against false involvement. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the police to clearly communicate the accused of his valuable right to be searched by a magistrate or by the gazetted officer and in a case where this vital right of the accused is diluted, the very purpose of creating this right in the NDPS Act is defeated. The objective of this Section is to make aware the accused of his right, and the whole purpose behind creating this right is effaced if the accused is not able to exercise the same for want of knowledge about its existence. The right ingrained under Section 50 of the Act is of utmost importance to the accused and failure of the police to communicate the same to the accused, entails fatal consequences on the roots of the prosecution case. 21. In the case in hand, after examining the testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses, it is more than certain that police did not comply the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in the wake of this, we are indeed unable to hold the accused guilty. 22. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Desh Raj & another, 2016 (Suppl.) Himachal Law Reporter (DB) 3088, this Court has relied upon the law laid down in Parmanand’s case (supra). Relevant para of the judgment of this Court is extracted hereunder : “18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345 , have held that there is a need for individual communication to each accused and individual consent by each accused under Section 50 of the Act. Their lordships have also held that Section 50 does not provide for third option. Their lordships have also held that if a bag carried by the accused is searched and his personal search is also started, Section 50 would be applicable. Their lordships have also held that Section 50 does not provide for third option. Their lordships have also held that if a bag carried by the accused is searched and his personal search is also started, Section 50 would be applicable. ……” Again, in the present set of facts and circumstances, the judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the present case, as the right provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in no way can be diluted and its compliance is mandatory in nature. 23. In view of the settled legal position, as discussed hereinabove, and on the basis of testimonies of the official prosecution witnesses, which clearly show that mandatory compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been made, it is more than safe to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned Trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity. We see no ground to overturn the findings of acquittal of the learned Trial Court. 24. The appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall stand (s) disposed of.