Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate, for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary, Additional Government Advocate, for the State/respondent.

3. On due consideration, urgency application no.295 of 2013 is allowed.

4. Heard on the merits of petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel, it appears that about 15 kilogram of poppy straw (DODA Powder) was recovered from the possession of the applicants. The main contention of learned counsel is that the compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) has not been made. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the following authorities: -

1. “Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 981

2. Myla Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 686"

6. On the other hand, as regards the compliance of Section 50 of the Act, the following judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court are also worthy to be considered: -

7. In the case of Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. 1166, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that if nothing was recovered from the person of accused and poppy stra