The police must obtain the consent of the accused for a search in accordance with the requirements of section 50(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and must comply with the requirements of section 57 of the Act, which mandates the Investigating Officer to send a full report of the arrest and seizure to the immediate superior officer within 48 hours.

Bhawani Singh, A. C. J.—Both these applications (Cr. M. P. (M) No. 1099 of 1993, Christiance Lagattolla v. State of H. P. and Cr. M P. (M) No. 1100 of 1993, Daniela Fiegna v. State of H P., are proposed to be decided by a common order since they arise out of the same incident and the accused were in occupation of the same accommodation when the incident, as per the prosecution, took place, Shri K. S, Banyal learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that these applications be treated to be petitions under section 482 of the Code .of Criminal Procedure and the First Information Report as well as the proceedings initiated by the police in this case be quashed in the interest of justice since neither a case is made out nor there is any likelihood of their being convicted by the court in case the trial proceeds. The prayer is allowed.

2. The petitioners, both students, visited India and at the relevant time they were at Vashisht, a suburb of Manali—a tourist spot in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to the police, they were occupying a room in "Kulvi Lodge". The police got information that they had purchased charas from someone and, therefore, they wanted the search of the room in their occupation. Accordingly, the police came to the room. It was knocked. After knocking, Christiance Lagattolla opened the door, followed by Daniela Fiegna. The police told them that they wanted the search of the room since they had information that charas possessed by them was kept there. The police also brought to their notice whether they could conduct the search or the same could be done by the Magistrate or any other Gazetted Officer. Consent was obtained and the police proceed ed to search the room. From a bag, kept near the window, 800 grams of charas, wrapped in a polythene paper, was found. 25 grams of charas was separated by way of sample and the rest was sealed in the presence of the witnesses. The accused were intimated the grounds of their arrest and information was sent to the superior officer within the stipulated time.

3. These applications appeared before the Court on 17-12-1993. Interim bail was granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu/Lahaul and Spitti. The learned Counsel for them was asked to ensure the presence of the petitioners in the Court on December 24, 1993. Today, they are present. They were questioned. Both the petitioners know English only. They do not know Hindi. They explained that no charas was recovered from their room. Police came and asked for their passports and they were taken to the police station. Documents were got signed. They do not know anything about the matter.

4. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, placed the case file for perusal of the Court. After going through the investigation file, it is found that the police had prior information about this matter. While taking consent of the petitioners for search by them, the papers have been prepared in Hindi. The consent of the petitioners has been taken down in their handwriting in English. The document nowhere suggests that the accused were explained in English whether they consented to the search of the room by the police or they wanted that the same be done by the nearest Magistrate or by any Gazetted Officer. The police knew very well that the petitioners did not understand any language other than English. I think, this has seriously prejudiced the right of the accused under section 50 (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho tropic Substances Act, 1985 in this case.

5. Requirement of section 57 of the Act is not ascertainable from any of the documents available on the file. This also tells upon the accuracy of the police investigation resulting in prejudice to the accused. Similarly, there is no document on the file showing that the Investigating Officer sent full report of all the particulars of the arrest and seizu