1. - Accused, appellant Chandra Kailash Hanuman has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd June, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the learned trial Judge has found the accused appellant guilty of having committed offence under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and accordingly, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous - imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. one lac, in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment of one year.

2. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are summarised as follow:

On 3.8.96, PW 8 Abdul Rasheed, Constable submitted a written report, Ex. P11 alleging therein that he along with Amardas, Constable were on petrolling duty and had gone to Mahaveerji by Inter-city Express and were returning to Gangapur by Dehradun Express in a general coach. According to him, when the train was about to stop at the platform of Gangapur Railway Station, he and constable Amardas moved towards the gate of general coach, they found that a man sitting in the gallary of the coach, immediately on seeing them in police dress, stood up and tried to get down from the rain and tried to move towards platform. He then raised an alarm and stopped the suspect. On being enquired in the presence of Narendra Singh, Hawaldar and Ravinder Kumar, present at the platform, the suspect disclosed his identity. On further inquiry, the suspect disclosed that he was in possession of some quantity of Charas. Thereafter, Abdul Rasheed took the accused to Police Station G.R.P., Gangapur City.

3. PW 7 Babu Lal, SHO, Police Station GRP having felt satisfied about the accused being in illegal possession of narcotic drugs, gave notice, Ex. P12 to the accused as required by Section 50 of the Act and then conducted search of the person of accused and recovered Charas weighing about 50 grams in three small polythene packets kept concealed in the inner front pocket of his trouser. He took two samples of 5 grams each from each of the packets and scaled the samples and remaining Charas in separate packets.

4. After completion of entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant.

5. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it framed charge against the appellant under Sections 8/20 of the Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

6. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was over, the appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. In reply to a question, the appellant admitted that Charas was recovered from his possession. In his explanation the appellant explained that he had purchased the Charas from some saints in order to get them arrested. He also explained that Charas was seized from him in the train.

7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge found the accused appellant guilty for offence under Sections 8/20 of Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

8. In assailing the conviction, the first argument advanced by Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant is that in fact the search of the person of appellant was conducted on the spot at the railway platform and that too by the persons who were not authorised under the Act to conduct the search. Referring the statements of PW 3 Amar Das and PW 4 Mehtab Singh, Mr. Sharma argued that search of the appellant was conducted by them and not by the officer empowered under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act and, therefore, the procedure adopted for search of the appellant was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the learned trial Judge has committed s