M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

The state has come up in appeal challenging the acquittal given to respondents 1 and 2 who were the accused in C.C. 99/1997 of the First Additional Sessions Court (special court for trial of N.D.P.S. Act cases, Ernakulam) in ewapect of the offence under Sec. 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. The prosecution alleged that pursuant to information received at about 9.30 a.m. on 9.8.1997 and after due compliance with sec. 42(2) of the N.D.P.S.Act, PW9-sub Inspectyor proceeded to the building mentioned in the information and found accused 1 and 2 who were man and wife as the sole occupants of the unnamed building. After due compliance with sec. 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act the building was searched and 301 ampules of tidigesic (buprenorphine) each of 2 milli litres capacity intended for injunction were seized from the building.(shed).

3. The reasons given by the trial court for granting acquittal to the accused are the following:-

(1) Rather than PW8 who was the Circle Inspector of Excise brought to the scene as witness under sec.50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, PW9-Sub Inspector should have looked for some other officers of the same locality.

(2) PW8 examined as witness to the search admitted that he had been a witness for a search in several cases detected by Mattancherry Police. He is hence a stock witness who deserves little credence.

(3) Though under sec. 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act the provisions of Cr.P.C. have to be strictly followed in the matter of search, there is lapse in this regard in so far as no respectable person of the locality was cited as witness to prove the search and seizure.

(4) The evidence of PW7 village officer is insufficient to establish that the building from where the seizure took place actually was possessed by the accused herein especially when the building had not been numbered by the local authority.

(5) It was PW9 who completed the investigation of the case and there was legal infirmity in the detecting officer himself continuing investigation and filing charge sheet.

4. According to the learned Government Pleader, none of these are sufficient or proper reasons justifying acquittal of the accused.

5. Sri. C.P.Udayabhanu, who appeared for the respondents submitted that the court should be reluctant to upset the acquittal in the absence of compelling reasons and also that reasons given by the trial court are valid.

6. The points for decision thus are:-

(i) Whether there is scope for upsetting the decision of the trial court, and

(ii) Reliefs.

7. I shall first consider the limits of jurisdiction vested in this court in a case of the present nature. Dhanna v. State of M.P. (AIR 1996 SC 2478) provides that though the Code does not make any distinction between an appeal from acquittal and an appeal from conviction so far as powers of the appellate court are concerned, certain unwritten rules of adjudication have consistently been followed while dealing with appeals against acquittal. Even though the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusions irrespective of whether the appeal is against conviction or acquittal, while dealing with an appeal against, the appellate court has to bear in mind:

(i) That there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal.

(ii) That every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial court acquitted him he would retain that benefit in the Appellate court also.

(iii) The appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed

8. In K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (AIR 1962 SC. 1788) it was held that the appellate jurisdiction in the matter of acquittal should be exerci