ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

2. The present appellants are the husband and wife and were accused of committing offences punishable under Section 8(C) and Section 20(B)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity).

3. It was the case of the prosecution that on credible information received on 26.8.2008, about ganja being transported on a two wheeler bearing No.M. 80, from Mangalore towards Udupi, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaup Police Station along with his staff and panch witnesses had proceeded to a spot namely, Hosa Marigudi temple on National Highway No. 17 and laid in wait for such two wheeler rider. At about 8 p.m., a vehicle bearing registration No.CTV 7986 was seen coming from Mangalore and going towards Udupi and on suspicion, the Sub-Inspector of Police had intercepted the vehicle. The first appellant was riding the vehicle and his wife was riding pillion. It was noticed that the second appellant was holding a plastic bag in her hand and on a search conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, it was found that the plastic bag which was carried by the second appellant contained ganja in two packets and therefore the appellants were questioned about the possession of the said substance and they had candidly stated that it was being carried for sale. It was in that background they were immediately arrested and a mahazar was drawn up and the article was seized and a case was registered. The substance was sealed and a portion of it was sent for forensic examination and after further proceedings, the appellants stood trial and pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, charges were framed against them. The prosecution had tendered evidence through six witnesses PWs.1 to 6 and had got marked several documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants did not choose to tender any evidence. The Court below had then framed the following points for consideration:

"1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused have committed an offences punishable under Sections 8(C) and 20(B)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by possessing 2 K.Gs. of ganja in a plastic bag while they were proceeding towards Udupi from Mangalore in M 80 vehicle bearing Registration No.CTV-7986 near Hosa Marigudi Temple, Kaup on N.H. 17, for sale without any licence or permit?"

The court below has answered the above point in the affirmative and convicted and sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years for offences punishable as aforesaid and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. It is this which is under challenge in the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants would raise several grounds, primarily to contend that there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the search and seizure therefore was illegal. It is pointed out that insofar as accused No.2 who was said to be carrying ganja was alleged to have been searched. However, the requirement under Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act is that no female shall be searched by any one except a female. It is denied by appellant No.2 that she was searched by a female and therefore, there is direct breach of mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the allegations against appellant No.21 would therefore stand vitiated. If appellant No.2 was said to be carrying ganja, appellant No. 1 could be absolved as there is no allegation of appellant No. 1 carrying any ganja.

5. Secondly, it is pointed out that according to the prosecution, the arrest was made on the national highway and at that time, other people had gathered and that there is no single independent witness except the official witnesses. This would not corroborate the case of the prosecution