Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is required only when contraband is seized from a person, not from belongings.

O R D E R

Under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 20(b)(ii) A of the NDPS Act .

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1749 of 2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur. He stood trial before that court for committing an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) A of the NDPS Act .

3. The prosecution case is that on 09.08.2009, at about

5.30 p.m., while PW1, the Excise Inspector, Pathanapuram and his party were patrolling through the Punalur - Kottarakkara Public Road, and when they reached near Yuvajana Samajam Public Library and Reading Room, Elampal, they found the accused carrying a plastic bag, in a suspicious circumstance. On seeing the Excise party, the appellant tried to remove himself and PW1 intercepted him. Thereafter, PW1 inspected the bag which was carried by the accused and found it containing 140 grams of ganja, kept in 66 small packets.

4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, and hearing both sides, found the accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) A of the NDPS Act , and convicted him thereunder. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, under the afore section.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No. 140 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Court- IV, Kollam. The said court, by judgment dated 22.07.2017, dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard Sri.P.M. Habeeb, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and Adv.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.

7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and appellate court did not appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective, and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the revision petitioner. He submitted that the mandatory provision under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with when the accused was searched and PW1 has not reported the seizure to his superior officer, thereby violating Section 57 also. He also submitted that if in any case, the revision petitioner is found guilty, the sentence imposed on him may be reduced.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with them. She argued that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in this case, since it is from a search conducted in a plastic cover carried by the accused, the contraband was seized. She also argued that compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act is not mandatory and even if there is no substantial compliance, the same will not vitiate the trial. 9. The evidence on record would go to show that the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to prove the detection and arrest of the accused. The evidence of PW1 would go to show that on 09.08.2009 at about 5.30 p.m., while he was patrolling along with other officials, he found the accused carrying a plastic cover in his hand. When the accused saw the Excise party, he got agitated and tried to remove himself from the spot. At that time, PW1 restrained the accused and questioned him. On inspecting the plastic cover, he found some small packets kept tied in a newspaper. He opened one of them and understood that the same is ganja. He, thus, found 66 packets being carried by the accused. Thereafter, he informed the accused about his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate in wri