As per case facts, an auto-rickshaw driven by the appellant was intercepted by police, and four gunny bags containing 'Charas' were discovered. Although initially acquitted by the trial court, the ... High Court reversed this, convicting and sentencing the appellant. The question arose whether the search and seizure operations were conducted in strict compliance with Section 50 concerning personal search and, more critically, Section 42 of the Act, which requires specific procedures for recording prior information and reporting to superior officers for conveyance searches. Finally, the Supreme Court determined that while Section 50 was inapplicable to a conveyance search, the non-compliance with Section 42 by the police, particularly the failure to record intelligence and inform superiors, significantly prejudiced the accused. This procedural lapse undermined the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the appellant had adequately discharged the burden of proving his lack of knowledge regarding the contraband, leading to the restoration of his acquittal and release.