The appellant, Gaje Kurmi, challenged his conviction under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act by the District and Sessions Judge, Shrawasti, which sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh for alleged possession of 450 grams of charas recovered during a police search at 4:15 a.m. on 18.11.2000. The appellant contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, that there was a 39-day delay in sending the sample for forensic examination, that the recovery memo appeared suspiciously neat for documents prepared by torchlight, and that no weighing machine was present at the spot to ascertain the contraband's weight. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) observed material infirmities and procedural lapses in the prosecution's case, including the improbability of a meticulously prepared recovery memo at night by torchlight, the absence of any weighing device at the spot, and the failure to properly inform the accused of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Suresh v. State of M.P., (2013) 1 SCC 550, affirming that Section 50 compliance is mandatory and that merely seeking consent for search does not satisfy the statutory requirement of informing the accused of his legal right.