IMPORTANT POINT
Expression search of a person in Section 50 of NDPS Act would include search of articles in immediate possession of accused.

JUDGMENT

A. Hanumanthu, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-6-1993 in Excise Case No. 70f 1993 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chitoor where under the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 18(c) read with Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter called a 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also today a fine of Rs.-3,000/- and in default to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the evidence on record is as follows:

(i) P.W. 4 who worked previously as Excise Sub - Inspector, Chittoor, went on raids to Rasanapalli village on. 18-12-1992 along with P.W. 3 the Excise Head Constable and the panch witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2. At about 5.00 p.m. while they were at a distance of two furlongs south-west of, Harijanawada near the Railway track, they noticed the appellant-accused coming towards Rasanapalli with a plastic bag, M.O.1, in his hand. On seeing the excise staff, the appellant tried to run away. Hence on suspicion, the appellant was detained and the contents of the plastic bag, M.O. 1. were checked by P. W. 4 in the presence of mediators P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the excise staff. M.O. 1 contained about three K.Gs. loose Ganja. On interrogation, the appellant gave his name and address but he did not disclose the source of Ganja. The appellant also did not produce any licence or, permit for being in possession of the said Ganja. P.W. 4 then had taken sample from the Ganja contained in M.O.1. labelled and sealed the bag, M.O.,1 and the sample packet. He arrested the accused and seized the contraband under panchanama Ex. P-3 attested by P.Ws. 1,2 and others. The accused was also served with a copy of the panchanama and the acknowledgement. Ex. P-4. After returning to the Excise Station. P.W. 4 registered Ex. P-3 as crime No. 20 of 199293 under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(i) of the Act and issued F.I.R. Ex. P-5. He sent the accused for remand on the next day along with the case property. He sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis and under Ex. P-6 the analyst found that the sample is Ganja. Further investigation was done by the Inspector who laid the charge -sheet.

(ii) The plea of the accused was one of denial. The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and marked Ex. P-1 to P-6 and M.Os. 1. The accused, when examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, reiterated that he was innocent and that he had been implicated falsely as he had sent petitions against the Excise Officials. The accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(l) of the Act and convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3.000/- and in default to pay the fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved of that verdict the accused has come up with this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - accused and the learned Public Prosecutor at length. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused took me through the entire evidence on record and also the impugned judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions:

(i) The mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the Act are not complied with before effecting the search on the person of the accused and as such the entire proceedings are vitiated and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

(ii) The prosecution failed to produce the authorisation given to P.W. 4 for effecting the search under the Act and as such P.W. 4 was not competent to searc