JUDGMENT :

Rajendra M. Sareen, J.

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, FTC No.2, Jamnagar in Special Case No.12 of 1998 acquitting the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 - original accused from the offence punishable under sections 20(b), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act ("NDPS Act" for short).

2. The case of the prosecution case is that on 01/05/1998, Mr.M.J.Parmar, Police Inspector, was performing his duty at City "B" Division Police Station, Jamnagar and he received a Secret information that the accused Sanjay Babugar with other was buying and selling the Narcotic Substance "Bhang Ganja" in public with other accused persons at Jamnagar, near Khodiya Colony, Jay Cooperative Society. After receiving the secret information, Shri Parmar started for raid and superior officers came to be intimated about the said secret information. Thereafter, with police staff, two panchas and necessary materials, they went to the scene of offence where they found that the accused persons Sanjay Babugar, Abdul Gafar Kadarmiya, Nanji Khimji and deceased Mohan Keshavji were sitting in circle with the pouch of narcotic substance which was in paper. After disclosing his identity and also informing about the power to search with the consent of the accused persons in the presence of staff and Panchas, carried out the search and seized the narcotic substance "Bhang Ganja' which was in old papers. Thereafter, Police Constable was sent to call a person to weigh Narcotic Substance. He came with one Soni Atul for weighing of seized Muddamal. On weighting it 567 Gram of Ganja was found, Shri Parmar took two samples of 25-25 Gram, and sealed the same in presence of panchas and police staff and rest of 517 Gram of ganja was seized from the person of accused Sanjay Babugar, an amount of Rs. 770 was recovered and Rs.60 from accused Nanji Khimji as Muddamal and gave Seizure memo copy to the accused.

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all accused persons and thereafter, charge was framed against them for the offence punishable under section 8(C) & 21 of NDPS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution laid evidence. After evaluating evidence on record and hearing both the sides, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents herein - original accused, as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal, present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State.

3. Learned APP Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the appellant - original complainant has vehemently argued that all the mandatory procedure has been followed by the investigating officer under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The trial court has not believed the evidence of the complainant. The learned Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses and documentary evidence on record. He has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them. He has further submitted that the prosecution has proved that the respondents have committed offence under sections 20(b), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. He has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. He has further submitted that the offence punishable under section 20(b), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the Special Judge. He has further submitted that though the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the pros