1. Relying on Mohinder Kumar V/s. State of Punjab (1995) 2 Reccent Cri 599 : (1995 AIR SCW 1208), Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman V/s. State of Kerala, (1995) 1 CCR 57 : (1994 AIR SCW 4393), and Amarjit Singh V/s. State (Delhi Admn.), (1995 2 Recent Cri 578, petitioners learned counsel contends that from the first information report it is evident that only co-accused Prem Singh was given an option under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act), which is mandatory provision, as held in these two Apex Court decisions (Ali Mustaffa and Mohinder Kumar). He further contends that in Amarjit Singhs case, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that even when search of a vehicle is taken, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act are required to be adhered to.

2. Respondents learned counsel contended that it was a case of chance recovery. Though by way of abundant caution option was given to co-accused Prem Singh, but in the facts of the case it was not necessary to give such an option to the accused persons under Section 50 of the Act.

3. So far as the facts of Ali Mustaffas, (1994 AIR SCW 4393) and Mohinder Kumars (1995 AIR SCW 1208