“6. As regards compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the Act there is only the evidence of P.W. 4 who has deposed in the Court that before the appellant was searched he had asked the appellant whether he is to be taken before a Gazetted Offcer or a Magistrate fori conducting the search and that the appellant replied that it was not necessary. This fact is, however, not mentioned in the F.I.R., Ex.P.7 as well as in the Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P.l. P.W.I, the other witness of the search, also does not support the said version of P.W. 4. The trial Judge did not consider it necessary to assess the evidence since he was of the view that it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The High Court has also proceeded on the basis that the provisions of Section 50 were directory and non-compliance was not fatal to the prosecution case. 7. Having regard to the fact that the F.I.R. and Seizure Mahazar do not mention about the appellant having been asked before the search was conducted as to whether he would like to be produced before a Gazetted Offcer or ai Magistrate and the further fact that P.W.I, the other independent witness, also does not state about this we are of the view that the prosecution has fled to establish thati there was compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act before conducting the search of the appellant. In view of the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of
