JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

Appellants faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 (B) (1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) . Each was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bhopal. The conviction and sentence were maintained by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by the impugned judgment.

2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution during trial are as follows :

On 31.3.2001, while Inspector Ajay Singh Bisen (PW-10) was on duty at G.R.P. Police Station, Bhopal, he received an information that two persons had got down from Madhya Pradesh Express and were waiting at platform No.2 for Coolie with suitcases and bags in which they were carrying contraband article (Ganja) . This information was recorded by him (Ex. P-25) and thereafter, he proceeded with his staff to the place as per the information received by him. He found the appellants standing with the suitcases and bags. On search of the suitcase of appellant no.1 Rajendra, he found 23 kilograms of Ganja therein, which was seized. Likewise, on the search of the bag of appellant no.2 Kalicharan he found 17 kilograms of Ganga therein, which was also seized. PW-10 prepared the seizure memos (Exh. P-5 and P-8) respectively) . He took samples of 25 grams each and sealed the same. The sample Panchnama is Exh. P-7. The seized articles were kept in sealed condition in the Malkhana. PW-10 had sent the sealed samples with specimen of seal to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar vide Exh. P-23 on 12.4.2001 and the report of the laboratory is Exh. P-29. PW-10 sent the full report of the search and seizure to the senior railway police as per Exh. P-28, dated 1.4.2001, K. Barsaiya (PW-3) was posted as Malkhana Moharrir in the Police Station, Government Railway Police, Bhopal and on 31.3.2001, the seized Ganja and the sample packets along with the suitcase and bag which were seized from the appellants were deposited by him in the Malkhana in a sealed condition.

3. Placing reliance on the evidence adduced, the trial Court recorded conviction and imposed sentence as noted supra. Appeal before the High Court did not bring any relief.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act. There was no proof of endorsement to the superior officer as mandated in Section 42 (2) of the Act. Before the search was made the accused persons were not intimated of their right to be searched in the presence of prescribed authority. There was also non-compliance with the requirements of Sections 55 and 57.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that both the trial Court and High Court have analysed the factual and legal position in detail. There is no infraction as alleged and the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity.

6. The requirements vis-a-vis Sections 42 and 50 have been dealt with in many cases, more particularly by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh 1999 Drugs Cases 150 : (1999) (6) SCC 172) . In para 17 the conclusions in an earlier judgment State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh 1994 Drugs 342 : (1994 (3) SCC 299 at para 25) were quoted and approved. We are concerned with conclusions (2-C) and (3) which read as follows :

" (2-C) Under Section 42 (1) the empowered office if has a prior information given by any persons, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he was reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief. But under the pro