JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar J. —

Ingenuity of counsel sometimes results in formulation propositions, which appear at the first flush to be legally sound and relatable to recognized cannons of criminal jurisprudence. When examined in greater depth, their rationale is nothing but illusory; and the argument is without substance. One such argument has been advanced in the present case by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant who contends that ‘even where the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) have not been complied with the recovery can otherwise be proved without solely relying upon the personal search of the accused’. According to the learned counsel, the courts are required to take into consideration evidence of recovery of illicit material independently of the factum of personal search of the accused as stated by other witnesses as such evidence would be admissible and can form the basis for conviction of an accused in accordance with law.

2. Before we notice the judgments which have been referred to on behalf of the State, it will be necessary for us to refer to the facts giving rise to