HARSHA DEVANI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 31.5.1997 passed by the learned Second Joint District Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.125 of 1996, whereby he has acquitted the respondents – accused of the offence punishable under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that on 9.6.1996, Head Constable, Omkarnath Shivbahadur Tiwari as well as other police personnel of the Crime Detection Department, Rajkot were patrolling in the Rajkot city as well as in the rural areas. During that time, at about 8:30 hours at night, they came near the Ranuja temple at Kothariya Road, when the accused No.1 was going on foot carrying a cardboard box. On seeing the policemen, he immediately turned back and started walking fast. Considering his suspicious behaviour, he was stopped and the details of his name etc. were inquired. Two panchas were summoned and upon examining the contents of the cardboard box, it was found that the same contained three packets wrapped in an English daily newspaper and one white plastic bag containing four packets. Upon opening and examining the four packets, it was found that each of the packets contained loose ganja and the plastic bag contained 101 small plastic bags containing ganja. Upon inquiring from the accused No.1 whether he had any permit for possessing such ganja, he was not able to produce any such permit. Upon calling for weighing scales and weighing the four packets, the same totally weighed 2,100 grams. The estimated cost of the ganja was Rs.10,500/-. The three packets wrapped in English daily newspapers as well as the plastic bag were again placed in the cardboard box and the cardboard box was sealed and the slips bearing the signatures of the panchas were affixed thereon. The person of the accused was also searched and Rs.3,575/-were recovered from him. A panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn and the signatures of the panchas were obtained thereon and the accused were arrested. Pursuant thereto, a first information report came to be lodged by Head Constable Omkarnath Tiwari at Rajkot Taluka Police Station. The investigation came to be handed over to Head Constable Omkarnath Shivbahadur Tiwari, who thereafter carried out the investigation. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the concerned court.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined, in all, seven witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence on record. Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that there were discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses as regards the number of seals that has been affixed on the cardboard boxes. The trial court also found that the mandatory procedure envisaged under section 50 of the Act had not been followed prior to searching the person of the accused and accordingly, held that the prosecution had not established the charges levelled against the accused and acquitted them.

4. Mr. H. K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently assailed the impugned judgement and order by submitting that in the facts of the present case, the contraband viz., ganja had been recovered from the cardboard box which was carried by the accused. Under the circumstances, the provisions of section 50 of the Act would not be applicable. In support of his submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H. P. v. Pawan Kumar, (2005)4 SCC 350, for the proposition that where a search of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc., which is being carried by the accused is made, section 50 of the Act would not be applicable. The articles, namely, a bag, briefcase etc. cannot be treated as the body of a human-being and hence, would not come within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in secti