( 1 ) CAN a person in possession and transporting in an autorickshaw without any passenger in it in a public place 105. 700kgs. of Cannabis Sativa (charas) worth Rs. 5 29 0 be held to be in unconcious possession or without knowledge of the contents in the packets ? Were the provisions of Sec. 42 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotro- pic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `n. D. P. S. Act) required to be followed or the provisions under Sec. 43 of the N. D. P. S. Act are applicable in case of seizure in public place ? Are provisions fo Chapter V N. D. P. S. Act mandatory the non-compliance of which will vitiate investigation trial of conviction ipso facto or miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused requited to be established ? These are some of the main points requiring consideration in this acquittal appeal preferred by the State against the respondent.

( 2 ) ADDITIONAL City Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence held that it is amply made out from the evidence on record that the muddamal articles found from the possession of the respondent and seized undes the panchnama (Exhibit 7) received in sealed condition by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 15-1-1988 happened to be analysed by the Biological Division are found to contain botanical material of Cannabis Sativa (charas) and as per the opinion (Exhibit 12) the contents of all the 11 bags are found to contain charas. The learned trial Judge also held that the identity of the muddamal articles found from the possession of the respondent and analysed by the Forensic Science Laboratory is also duly established by the prosecution and that part of the prosecution case has not been seriously challenged on behalf of the defence. As recorded by the learned trial Judge the only aspect that was seriously pressed before him was that the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the aspect of possession much less conscious possession and knowledge on the part of the accused who happened to be the driver of the autorickshaw from which four gunny bags were found wherein there were 11 packets the contents of which weighed about 105. 700 kgs. in the form of balls of uneven shape and size which according to the analysis and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory happened to be narcotic drugs viz. Cannabis Sativa Learned trial Judge also observed that the mandatory provisions of Sec. 42 N. D. P. S. Act were not complied with as the information received by the Police Inspector Shri P. M. Vishen was not reduced into writing and he had not sent the copy of the information to the immediate superior Officer within the requisite time. It appears from the observation that the learned trial Judge referred the judgment in the case of HAKAM SINGH V. UNION TERRITORY 1988 CRI. L J 528 but did not clearly observe that the mandatory provisions are violated and therefore the respondent-accused Was entitled to acquittal. The learned trial Judge ultimately observed that for want of mens rea and intention and/or knowledge on the part of the respondent-accused the offences punishable under Secs. 20 (b) (ii) and 25 of N. D. P. S. Act and Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act cannot be said to have been duly brought home beyond all reasonable doubt against the respondent-accused and in view of the nature of the evidence on record the respondentaccused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned trial Judge accordingly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitted So far as the finding that the respondent was carrying four gunny bags in the rickshaw without any passenger and the bags contained 11 packets of Cannabis Sativa (charas) having a total weight of 105. 700 kgs. and worth Rs. 5 29 0 is concerned we agree with the learned trial Judge as that is borne out from the evidence on record and therefor we do not think that it is necessary to discuss the evidence extensively. We will however narrate in short the prosecution case and discuss evi