The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with the mandatory provisions of S. 50(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in conducting searches and seizures, and the clarification of the nature of S. 57 as directory rather than mandatory.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20-1-1999 passed by than Sessions Court, Kollam, in S. C. No. 168/96. The accused is the appellant.

2. The appellant was indicted for the offence punishable under S. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') in crime No. 177/96 registered by Kilikolloor Police. It is alleged that on 6-8-1996 at about 11-25 a.m. at the by lane proceeding from Palkulangara railway cross to Capex junction in Kilikolloor Village the appellant was found in illegal possession of 16 grams of ganja in 11 small packets for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act and as such he has committed the offence punishable under S. 20(b)(1) of the Act.

3. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty of the charge, the prosecution adduced evidence P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exts. P1 to P7 and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence in this case. No defence evidence was adduced. After hearing both sides and evaluating the evidence on record, the lower Court found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under S. 20(b)(i) of the, Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Hence this appeal is preferred by the appellant before this Court.

4. The learned I counsel for the appellant submitted that only the police officials supported the prosecution case and the independent witnesses cited have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case and therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7, the police officials, to find the appellant guilty in this case. The lower Court found the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 is credit-worthy and can be relied upon to find the guilt of the accused, though P.Ws. 2 and 3, the independent witnesses examined in this case, have turned hostile to the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7, I also find that their evidence is acceptable and nothing is brought out in the cross-examination to discredit their veracity. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 7 is insufficient to find the guilt of the appellant in this case is not sustainable.

5. The appellant has contended that the search and seizure as well as the entire proceedings in this case are vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of S. 50 of the Act. The counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, there is only partial compliance of the mandatory requirements of S. 50 of the Act since the case of the prosecution is that P.W. 7, the detecting officer, has only informed the appellant that he is entitled to be searched before a Gazetted Officer and he has not stated that the appellant is entitled to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate. Therefore, according to him, the search is vitiated for partial compliance of S. 50 of the Act.

6. In Ext. P5 seizure mahazar prepared by P. W. 7, it is only stated that before search P. W. 7 informed the appellant that he is entitled to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and he has waived that right P.W. 7, the detecting officer, has also deposed that he has only stated that the appellant is entitled to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer P.W. 4 the A.S.I. who was present along with P.W. 7 at the time of search and seizure, has deposed that P.W. 7 informed the appellant that he is entitled to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He has further deposed that he did not bear P.W. 7 telling the appellant that he is entitled to be searched before a Magistrate P.W. 5 the Head Consta