Procedural violations in the search, seizure, and arrest of an accused person do not necessarily render the proceedings invalid, unless the accused has been prejudiced by the violations.

Miss. Rekha Parameswari, a Sri Lankan national, stated to be falsely styled an Gananambikai Mukhaiya, holding a Sri Lankan passport, also stated to be a forged one, was a passenger bound for Colombo by Indian Airlines flight I.C. 573 on 21-2-1989. She proceeded for security check after customs clearance at the Madras International Airport. The lady Security Officer, while frisking her, felt that something was kept concealed on her person. She was therefore taken to a toilet and when her person was searched in the presence of two lady witnesses, her undergarment jetty was found bulging, creating a suspicion that something was kept concealed within. On being asked to remove the jetty for examination, she did so and a polythene bag was kept in between two jetties stitched together and it was found to contain some brown powder, suspected to be narcotic substance weighing 500 gms. When questioned, she was stated to have admitted that the said powder was brown sugar and the same was given to her by a person to be smuggled out of India to Sri Lanka. She was not holding any permit and therefore the same was seized by the Security Officer under a mahazar for taking action under the Customs Act read with the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'N.D.P.S. Act'). She was stated to have given a statement before the Customs Officer in her own writing in Tamil, confessing the clandestine transport of brown sugar from India to Sri Lanka for monetary consideration. After completing the formalities of investigation, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Prosecution Cell, Preventive Department, Customs Department, Madras-1, laid the complaint against her before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, in C.C. Nos. 33 of 1989 alleging offences under S. 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would virtually mount a scathing attack on the sustainability of the prosecution against the petitioner by stating that inasmuch as the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act are so stringent in punishing ruthlessly the offenders in inflicting imprisonment up to a minimum period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, the Parliament made certain procedural safeguards to ensure the liberty of citizens accused of such offences by incorporation of certain mandatory provisions, non-compliance of which will have the effect of throwing lock, stock and barrel the case of the prosecution by rendering a verdict of acquittal. He would amplify this submission that, in so far as the case on hand is concerned, the provisions contained in Ss. 42, 50, 52-A(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act had been flagrantly violated and besides the test report for determining the nature of the substance seized from the petitioner has not been obtained from the Authority prescribed under the Rules framed under the Act, and therefore, it is, that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

3. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, learned counsel appearing for the Customs Department, would repel such submissions and he would state that the invalidity of a proceeding or illegality of a search or seizure, does not vitiate the prosecution, unless such invalidity or illegality has resulted in causing prejudice to the person accused of the offence.

4. Section 42 deals with the power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. The Central or State Government, for the exercise of power under the section, can empower any Officer Superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable of the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue, Intelligence or any other Department of the Central Government or the Border Security Force. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the search, seizure and arrest had been effectuated by the lady Security Officer at the airport, who is an Officer in the Cadre of a Sub-Inspector of Police, and admittedly she is not an Officer empowered by th