HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2124 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 8(c)/20 (b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.5,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. It is alleged that on 26.12.2000 at about 5.00 P.M., the police arrested the accused near Seshamahal at Arundelpet, Guntur and seized 60 grams of ganja from his possession in the presence of mediators and under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediators report. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the above charge. 2. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that PW.1 is a stock mediator and that trial of the case is vitiated as there was no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act in this case. PW.1 and Daliparthi Satyanarayana were the mediators in Ex.P.1 mediators report. Daliparthi Satyanarayana was no more by the time of trial in the lower Court. PW.1 admitted in cross- examination that he acted as mediator in 4 or 5 cases but not in 200 cases. PW.2 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Arundelpet (Crime) Police Station, Guntur. He admitted in cross-examination that PW.1 acted as mediator in cases relating to Arundelpet Police Station in not less than 30 cases. There is no dispute about PW.1 being a stock mediator for the police. 3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Guntur who was in the raid party at the time of detection of the offence could not be examined by the prosecution as he was no more by the time of trial in the lower Court. It has to be seen whether there was sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the Act in this case. It is evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 that when Inspector of Police searched the accused, 6 packets of ganja in a polythine bag were found in his shirt packet. It is a case of personal search of the accused. In the case of personal search of the accused, compliance of Section 50 of the Act is mandatory. It is evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that Inspector of Police disclosed that he was a gazetted Officer and further asked the accused whether he requires presence of another gazetted Officer for his search and that the accused stated that it was not necessary. No doubt, there is no form prescribed for compliance of Section 50 of the Act and it can be either oral or in writing. In case the said compliance is oral, then it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. PW.1 in cross-examination stated that no mention was made in Ex.P.1 about informing the accused by the Inspector of Police about he being a gazetted Officer and whether he required another gazetted Officer for his search and seizure, and about his reply. PW.2 also stated in Ex.P.1 mediators report, no mention was made about compliance of Section 50 of the Act by the Inspector of Police. Oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard is not based on any previous recording of the fact of oral compliance of Section 50 of the Act. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard is baseless. In the absence of mentioning in Ex.P.1 mediators report about oral compliance of Section 50 of the Act, oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard can be manipulated subsequently during trial in an ingenious manner. In order to rule out such manipulations during trial, it may be salutary to mention oral compliance of Section 50 of the Act in the mediators report. In the absence of mentioning of the same in Ex.P.1, I doubt oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in this regard. It follows that the prosecution case is vitiated for non-compliance of the Section 50 of the Act in this case. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the accused/appellant and acquitting him. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 21st December, 2011. PNV