JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. These Two Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 04.09.2008, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2004, State vs. Nukta Prasad and Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2004, State vs. Manoj Kumar. 2. Appellant-Nukta Prasad has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for the offence under Section 8 read with section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘Act 1985’) and in default of which, he has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two years in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2004. 3. Appellant-Manoj Kumar has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) for the offence under Section 8 read with section 20 of the Act, 1985, and, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of two years in Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2004. 4. These two criminal appeals are connected appeals, therefore, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2008 will be treated as a leading case. 5. Briefly stated the prosecution case as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence on record is that on 02.12.2003, Station Officer C.S. Yadav (PW1), Constable Harbhajan Singh (PW2) along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty. They were going from Pilibhit road market to the main market. When they reached near the railway crossing on the east side of the roadways, they saw the accused persons coming from the south side. Seeing the police, they turned back and started walking towards the railway station. On suspicion, they were apprehended at 2:00 a.m. On enquiry, they told their names and addresses. They told that they had one kilogram Charas. (PW1) C.S. Yadav asked the accused persons to give their search before a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer. The accused persons said that they have full faith in him and they do not want to go to any Magistrate or any Gazette Officer for their search. They asked him to search. They told that they had one kilogram Charas. (PW1) C.S. Yadav asked the accused persons to give their search before a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer. The accused persons said that they have full faith in him and they do not want to go to any Magistrate or any Gazette Officer for their search. They asked him to search. After preparing the consent letter of the accused persons by C.S. Yadav (PW1), they were searched by him. On personal search, Charas (Material Ext.1) were recovered from inside the shirts worn by them. They were arrested. In spite of an endeavour, no public witness could be secured. The recovered materials were seized. The said materials were taken into possession vide Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka.1). As per the Recovery Memo (Ext. Ka.1), about one kilogram of Charas was recovered from each accused. An FIR (Ext. Ka.4) was lodged by C.S. Yadav (PW1). A 100-100 grams samples, from the recovered materials, were taken before Special Judge, Champawat. The said samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. On examination, the Chemical Examiner found the same to be “Charas”. Charge-sheets were filed after completion of investigation. 6. Charges under Section 8 read with section 20 of the Act, 1985 were framed. Appellants – accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges, examined five witnesses. 8. (PW1) C.S. Yadav and (PW2) Constable Harbhajan Singh were members of the arresting party. 9. According to (PW3) Constable Gaje Singh, on 18.12.2003, he took out the recovered sealed materials from the Malkhana of the police station and produced it before the Special Sessions Judge, Champawat. In front of Special Judge, 100-100 grams samples were taken out from each sealed packet and the sample packets were sealed. He deposited the said samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra on 20.12.2003. 10. (PW4) Station Officer, Bipin Chandra Pant is Investigating Officer. 11. (PW5) Head Constable Gopal Ram is the scriber of the First Information Report (Ext. Ka.4). 12. Statements of appellants-accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 13. Appellants did not adduce any defence evidence. 14. 11. (PW5) Head Constable Gopal Ram is the scriber of the First Information Report (Ext. Ka.4). 12. Statements of appellants-accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence, produced by the prosecution. 13. Appellants did not adduce any defence evidence. 14. Learned Trial Court heard the arguments, appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgment, by which the appellants have been convicted on the basis of recovery. 15. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, awarded by the Trial Court, appellants appealed to this Court. 16. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, contended that the provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 was not followed in this case. It is mandatory for the arresting party to give the appellants the option of being searched before a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer. This option was not given, and, there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses. Therefore, their evidence do not inspire confidence. 17. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Adhikari learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has supported the judgment. 18. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully assessed the evidence, adduced by the prosecution. 19. As per the case of the prosecution, about one kilogram of Charas was recovered during the personal search of each of the appellants. PW1 C.S. Yadav has stated in his cross-examination that the recovered contrabands were not weighed. 20. As per the Table prepared in terms of Section 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, lesser than 100 grams of Charas is small quantity and greater than 01 kilogram is commercial quantity (Entry No. 23). Therefore, according to the prosecution, recovered contraband was non-commercial. 21. The provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 are as under: “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.” 22. Section 50 of the Act, 1985, casts duty on empowered officer to inform the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. 23. In Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609 , Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “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. 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. 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.” 24. In Arif Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the suspects may or may not choose to exercise the right provided to them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act but as 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. 25. It is well settled that when the law provides for doing of an act in a particular manner, it necessarily prohibits the doing of that act in any other manner. 26. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 C.S. Yadav asked the appellants to give their personal search before a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer. Appellants said that they have full faith in him and they do not want to go to any Magistrate or any Gazette Officer for their search. Then, their personal search were conducted by PW1 C.S. Yadav. In these circumstances, it is quite clear that the appellants were not informed about their legal right to be searched before any Magistrate or Gazette Officer. Therefore, non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 makes sufficient case for acquittal. 27. According to PW1 C.S. Yadav, police party did not conduct its own search on the spot, while not supporting the said evidence of PW1 C.S. Yadav, (PW2) Constable Harbhajan Singh has stated in his cross-examination that he did search the police party on the spot. Therefore, there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses. In these circumstances, the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses also do not inspire confidence. 28. As a result, I accept the case of the appellants. Therefore, there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses. In these circumstances, the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses also do not inspire confidence. 28. As a result, I accept the case of the appellants. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 04.09.2008, passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2004, State vs. Nukta Prasad and Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2004, State vs. Manoj Kumar, are set aside. Appellants, Nukta Prasad and Manoj Kumar are acquitted of the charge under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged. 29. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected Appeal.