Failure to comply with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in conducting a search and seizure renders the search and seizure illegal and precludes a conviction based solely on the testimony of the police officials.

R.L. Anand, J. - This is a criminal appeal filed by Balbir Singh, and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.1999 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who convicted the appellant under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac; in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo R.I. for one year.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.1997 ASI Darshan Mal of Police Station Dakha along with HC Gulzar Singh, Gurdev Singh and Kulwant Singh, Constables, went for patrolling and nakabandi on private scooters. They were present on the bridge of the canal in the area of village Bassian Bet. In the meanwhile, the appellant was found coming from the side of village Bassian Bet a about 3 PM. On seeing the police party, the appellant felt perplexed and tried to take a turn along the bank of the canal. However, on the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended. At that time, the appellant was carrying a plastic bag on his head. The appellant was made aware by the I.O. that he wanted to conduct his search and in case he so desires, some gazetted officer or Magistrate could be called. The accused, however, reposed confidence in the I.O. for the search. Consent statement, Ex.PA, was recorded, which was thumb marked by the appellant and attested by HC Gulzar Singh and Constable Kulwant Singh. Thereafter, the I.O. conducted the search of the bag and poppy husk was found. Accused could not produce any licence or permit for the possession of the same. Two samples of poppy husk each weighing 250 grams were drawn from the poppy husk in the plastic bag. They were converted into two separate parcels and sealed with the seal bearing inscription DM. The remaining poppy husk came out to be 20 kgs. It was, again, put in the same plastic bag, which was sealed with the seal bearing inscription DM. Impression of the seal used was retained on the chit Ex. P-1. Seal after use was handed over to HC Gulzar Singh. The entire case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PG, attested by HC Gulzar Singh and Constable Kulwant Singh. Thereafter, a ruqa, Ex.PE, was sent to the police station for the registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex.PE/1, was recorded. From the personal search of the appellant, a sum of Rs. 25/- was recovered and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PC. The I.O. prepared the rough site plan of the place of recovery. Appellant was formally arrested after disclosing the grounds of arrest, Ex.PD. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and on return to the police station, the entire case property and the accused were produced before Mohan Singh, SHO, who verified the investigation and re-sealed the case property with his own seal bearing inscription MS. Impression of the seal used was retained in chit, Ex.P-1. Mohan Singh, SHO, deposited the case property with the MHC on the same day. On 16.12.1997, the accused and the case property were taken by the I.O. from MHC Kewal Singh and produced before the Magistrate vide request, Ex.PG. and the order, Ex.PG/1, was passed by the Magistrate. On the same day, the I.O. deposited the case property with the MHC. One part of the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, who vide report, Ex.PK, declared the contents as chura of the poppy head containing meconic acid and morphine.

3. On the completion of the investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned in the Court of the Special Judge, who supplied the copies of the documents free of cost as required under the law and vide order dated 10.3.1998, the accused was charge-sheeted u/e 15 of the Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution e