( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) THE learned Judge has granted bail, placing reliance on two judgments, one of Balbir Singh (1994 (3) SCC 299) and another of Hathi @ Mangalsinh (1993 (2) GLR 1743 ). So far as Sec. 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act is concerned, it is attracted, when a person accused of offences punishable under N. D. P. S. is required to be searched and not his premises. Therefore, much time was spent by the learned Counsel in arguing his case on the ground of non-compliance of Sec. 50 despite this Court telling him that this Court is in agreement with his argument, which is based on the judgment in Balbir Singh (supra), that non-compliance of Secs. 41, 42 and 50 vitiates the trial. The question is whether non-compliance of any of these provisions can be inferred from the First Information Report only ? In the First Information Report, compliance of Sec. 41, Sec. 42 or Sec. 50 is not required to be stated. What is required to be stated in the First Information Report is the facts constituting offence as required under Sec. 154 of the Code. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 154 reads as under :-"154. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given o