( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 28th February, 1991 and 2nd March, 1991 respectively. The appellant Sunil Kumar was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to. as the Act) and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. l,00,000. 00 (Rupees one lakh only ). In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

( 2 ) THE sum and substance of the prosecution case is that on 19th August, 1990, Assistant Sub Inspector 0m Parkash was patrolling accompanied by Constables 0m Parkash, Balvinder Singh and Sumer Singh. While patrolling, they reached near Hanuman Mandir. Secret information was received that one person is sitting near Suthrishah Mandir and is selling charas. A raiding party was organised. Partap Singh son of Ram Singh, a public witness was joined in the raiding party. Other public persons refused to join the said raiding party.

( 3 ) AT about 9. 00 P. M. , Shri Chander Mohan, Officer Incharge of the Police Station arrived there and was apprised of the facts. The appellant was apprehended near Suthrishah Mandir at the pointing out by the informer. The accused/appellant was informed that he is suspected to be in possession of charas and that if he likes his person can be searched before a Gazetted Officer of a Magistrate. He spurned the offer.

( 4 ) THE person of the appellant was searched and from the right pocket of the trouser of the accused charas wrapped in a polythene paper was recovered which was weighed and found to be 250 gms. Ten grams was taken as a sample. The sample of and the rest of the charas were filled into two different parcels and sealed with the seals of CMI and OPD. The form was filled up and fascimile of the seal were fixed on it.

( 5 ) BOTH the packets were taken into possession vide a recovery memo. The officer incharge of the police station took the articles and deposited in the Malkhana. Head Constable Kal Charan was the malkhana Moharir . He made the entry in register No. XIX about deposit of the articles at Sr. No. 1680 on 24th August, 1990. The sample was sent through Constable Ved Parkash to the C. F. S. L. On receipt of their report that contents were charas, the case as such was put in in Court.

( 6 ) THE learned Trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and passed the impugned judgment and the order of sentence REFERRED TO to above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

( 7 ) AMICUS Curiae lawyer had been appointed but no one appeared when the case was listed for hearing. In these circumstances, I did not have the advantage of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant. The file was. perused with the help of Mr. N. K. Han da, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.

( 8 ) WHILE stringent punishment has been rescribed by the legislature in the Act, at the same time, safeguards have been provided so as to ensure that no prejudice is caused to any person accused of the offence under the Act. One such safeguard is under sub-section (1) to Section 50 of the Act. The said provision unfolds itself in the following words:-

"when any officer duty authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delav to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. "

( 9 ) A bare perusal of the provision quoted above leaves no doubt that it is the right of the person to be searched to insist that he be taken without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act, or to the nearest Magistrate. This is an extremely valuable right which the legislatur