( 1 ) ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1994, whereas accused Nos. 4 to 6 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1994 against the judgment dated 4-2-1994 in Calender Case No. 32 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the appellants were convicted under Section 8 (c) read with Section 29 (b) (i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - for short the Act , and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.

( 2 ) SINCE both the appeals are directed against the same judgment, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the prosecution case as follows : O 26-9-1993 at about 5. 30 a. m. , all the accused were found in front of the Casuarina tope of Lankalapalli Papanna near Champavathi River of Nathavalasa junction. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pusapatirega Police Station found the accused in possession of one plastic bag each in which Ganja was packed with brown and English papers and kept in plastic cement bags ranging from 6 Kilograms to 8 Kilograms with each accused. The accused were in possession of Ganja without any licence. PW2 took samples and arrested the accused and seized the Ganja. PW4 registered a case basing on such report under the Act. Further investigation revealed that the samples ofganja belonging to the family of Cannabinaceae.

( 4 ) THE plea of the accused is one of denial. On behalf of prosecution PWs. 1 to 4 were examined. PW1 is the village Administrative Officer. PW2 is the person who took balance to weigh the material seized by the police. PW3 is the constable who had gone along with the raid party. PW4 is the Sub-Inspector of police. Exs. Pltop6 were marked on behalf of prosecution.

( 5 ) EX. PI is the Mediators report regarding the seizure, Ex. P2 is the Mediators report regarding weighing. Ex. P3 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex. P4 is the First Information Report. Ex. PS is the copy of the letter of advice sent to Analyst. Ex. P6 is the Analyst report. On behalf of defence a contradiction in the statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr. PC was marked as Ex. Dl.

( 6 ) THE material objects are samples weighed by PW4 and attested by PW2. The said material objects are 36 in number. The further details with regard to the material objects are not relevant for purpose of deciding the case on hand.

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that. the procedure prescribed under Sections 50 and 57 of the Act which are mandatory has not been followed in this case, and hence, the appellants are not liable to be punished and the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants did not argue on other merits of the case, except with regard to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under the Act viz. , the procedure prescribed under Sections 50 and 57 of the Act. It is his further contention that the procedure prescribed under Sections 50 and 57 of the Act was incorporated to avoid misuse of the powers by the authorities by implicating innocent people. He further contends that it is imparative on the part of the authorities to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 50 and 57 of the Act.

( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed such contentions, and submitted that these issues were not raised before the trial Court by the accused and as such, they are not available to the appellants before this Court. He further submitted that the procedure as prescribed has been strictly complied with before search and seizure, and therefore, the finding of the trial Court after considering the entire evidence and material placed on record is absolutely proper.

( 10 ) THEREFORE, the only question that arises for consideration in these appeals is "whether the procedure under Sections 50 and 57 of the Act is mandatory or not, if so, whether the same was followed