Alexander Thomas, J.

1. This appeal has been instituted by the accused under Sec. 374 of the Cr.P.C to impugn the judgment dated 24.8.2012 in S.C.No.50/2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad- Hoc)-I, Ernakulam whereby the accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of two years for the offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act'). The case arose out of Crime No.8/2011 of Ernakulam Excise and Anti Narcotic Special Squad (EE&ANSS), Ernakulam. After investigation, in the crime, the investigating officer concerned filed the requisite final report/charge sheet for the aforementioned offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

2. The brief of the prosecution case is that the appellant/accused was found in front of the house of one Sri.Ambadan Sulaiman on the side of the road leading to Perumbavoor Rayons, near Kochangadi Junction in Chelamattom Village of Kunnathunad Taluk on 12.7.2011 at about 8:30 pm. It is alleged that the accused was holding a plastic bag in which dried ganja weighing about 3 kg. was kept. The accused was arrested and the contraband was taken into custody and the crime was registered. After the submission of the final report/charge sheet as stated above the court framed the charge against the accused for the aforementioned offence under the NDPS Act.

3. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses viz. PWs-1 to 6 and marked 11 prosecution exhibits viz. Exts.P-1 to P-11 and also produced 6 material objects viz. MOs-1 to 6 in the course of trial. After the completion of the trial the court below passed the impugned judgment on 24.8.2011 convicting and sentencing the appellant as stated above for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the court below, the accused has impugned the same by instituting the aforementioned appeal.

4. Heard Smt.V.Sreeja, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State of Kerala. Both sides have elaborately dealt with the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence in this case. The appellant and the prosecutor have also made elaborate submissions reiterating their respective versions and contentions.

5. One of the main grounds urged by the appellant in this case is that the search and seizure of the contraband have been made in violation of the provisions engrafted in Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act and therefore the conviction on the basis of such seizure of the contraband effected on the basis of such search, stands vitiated, in view of the law well settled in this regard by a series of decisions of the Apex Court including Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court. Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act reads as follows:

50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted:-

(1) When any officer duly 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 delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.

(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).

(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.

(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.

(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of