The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of proper seizure, sample drawing, and sealing procedures, and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act can lead to the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat, under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.2.2005, recorded by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) 4th Fast Track Court, Panchmahal, At Godhra, in Special Case (NDPS) No. 6 of 1985.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.08.2002, Police Inspector-V.V. Rathod and the staff were on patrolling. They reached Lalbaug bus stand near Ambika Cross Road, at this time, the opponent-accused came down from bus stand with a polythene bag. Sensing the police patrol, he went back to the bus stand. The said Police Inspector ordered the complainant and other police constable to bring the opponent-accused. He was brought and was examined. On examining, it was found that he was having 900 gm. of ganja worth Rs. 4500/-. The muddamal article was sealed and sent to the laboratory. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 was filed.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which came to be committed to the learned trial Court.

3.1 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed as such.

6. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper book and evidence on record and argued that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also submitted by him that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offences under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, which requires to be reversed as such and the accused is required to be convicted. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP further argued that ample evidences are available on record wherein the accused was caught red handed with large quantity of ganja weighing 900 gm. He further submitted that almost all the persons who had carried out the search supported the case of the prosecution, still, however, the learned trial Court has wrongly recorded finding that the prosecution failed to prove seizure as well as sample for analysis which was sent to the FSL. He has further submitted that the appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial Court suffers from the vice presumption and surmises which is required to be reversed as such. Mr. Dabhi, le