Pradeep Kumar, J.- The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2004 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2004 passed by Shri Prakash Rai, Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Hazaribagh in G.R. Case No. 2042 of 1992; T.R No.1 of 2004 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 380 of 1992, by which judgment he found the appellant, Allauddin Ahmad guilty under Section 21 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 year and also to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh and in 'default of payment of fine he shall undergo further RI. for 4 years more. However, he acquitted the co-accused, Jawed Akhtar .since the provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not complied.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had raised two legal points before the Special Judge that since seizure was made by the police officers, who were riot specially empowered to conduct the search and seizure, hence the entire search and seizure is bad in law and fit to be set aside. It is further submitted that the persons making search and seizure in the house of the appellant, was not an authorized person to make search and seizure under the N.D.P.S. Act and as such the search and seizure itself is bad in law and hence the conviction of the appellant is only fit to be set aside. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant before the trial court that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 to get the seizure made in presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate was also not done in the instant case and as such the conviction of the appellant is also bad in law and fit to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and stated that two persons were tried for the offence under Sections 18 and 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and since contraband drug i.e. opium and brown sugar were recovered from the person of the accused-appellant, Allauddin Ahmad and he (sic) was acquitted since neither any Magistrate was called nor they were informed that they have got any right to search in presence of Magistrate or gazetted officer, but from the house of this accused-appellant 16 pouches of brown sugar was recovered in total 1 kg. 650 gms., in that view of the matter, his conviction is sufficient and does not require any interference by this Court.

4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of First Information Report lodged by Inspector of Police- P.W.10 stating therein that on secret information on the direction of S.P., Hazaribagh on 9.9.92 at 16:30 hrs. he alongwith police party all 'from Sadar Thana, Hazaribagh raided the house of the accused-appellant, Allauddin Ahmad in his double storied pucca house in presence of independent witnesses, Mukesh Kumar and Satish Kumar Sinha and from the possession of appellant, Allauddin Ahmad 16 pouches containing brown sugar kept in a container of pan parag. In the same house co-accused Minhaj was also searched and from his pocket 2 larger polythene containing brown sugar and co-accused, Krishna Kumar Singh was also found in the same house and from his pocket a small pouch containing brown sugar kept in a polythene was also recovered. Then, as per the statement of Allauddin Ahmad further recovered katha biscuits from his house which was kept on the north west corner.

5. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police registered a case under Sections 8(c)/17/20/21/22/27 of the N.D.P.S. Act and after' investigation submitted charge-sheet in this case and the case was tried by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Hazaribagh, who found the appellant guilty as aforesaid.

6. In course of trial the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. P.W.1, Rai Shekhar, P.W. 2, Ram Nandan Prasad, P.W. 3, Anil Kumar Jha, P.W. 4, Vinod Kumar, P.W.5, Mukesh Kumar, P.W. 6, Santosh Kumar Sinha, P.W. 7, Birendra Kumar Singh-Investigating