The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of non-compliance with statutory provisions, such as Section 50, 55, and 57 of the NDPS act, on the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 29.08.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Case No.4/88, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS act').

2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, at the outset, submits that on account of demise of accused-respondent Dhoklaram s/o Sangram, the present appeal was dismissed as having abated qua him; and thus, the present appeal now survives only qua accused-respondent-Dhoklaram s/o Hema and accused-respondent-Lumbaram s/o Phoolaji. The amended cause title filed is already on record.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that upon an information received from the informant (mukhbir) on 14.08.1987, blockade of the way of Village Ummedpura was done on 15.08.1987, at that time, Bhanaram, SHO of the concerned police station and his team were present there. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that during such blockade, at about 02:00 a.m., three persons (present accused-respondents) were seen coming, of the description, as given by the informant, whereupon they were stopped by the police team and their credentials were asked; upon being found suspicion, they were searched, while following the due process of law, whereupon the contraband opium was recovered from the accused-respondents and the same was seized; the said opium was kept by the accused-respondents) without any lawful license.

3.1 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the said opium recovered from the possession of the accused-respondents was weighing 550 grams (deceased accused-Dhoklaram s/o Sangram), 350 grams (accused-Dhoklaram s/o Hema) and 500 grams (accused-Lumbaram). as per learned Public Prosecutor, after such recovery and seizure, the contraband opium was sealed, as per the due procedure, which followed the arrest of the accused-respondents and registration of a case against them; whereafter, the samples were sent for the FSL analysis and the investigation commenced. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that since the preparation of the site map was not required, the same was not prepared; however, the factum of search, recovery and seizure was duly brought to the knowledge of the superior officers.

3.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after investigation, a charge-sheet for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS act was filed against the accused-respondents before the learned trial court; upon such charge being denied by the accused-respondents, they were made to stand the trial, and the trial accordingly commenced.

3.3 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the factum of recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused-respondents and its consequential seizure was clearly proved before the learned trial court, followed by substantiation thereof by the required number of witnesses to such recovery and seizure; thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, absence of only one mautbir cannot be said to be detrimental, in any manner whatsoever, to the case of the prosecution; this is more so when , there was no reason or ground put forth before the learned trial court on behalf of the accused-respondents, so as to persuade the learned trial court to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses, produced before it and examined during course of the trial.

3.4 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that during and after the search, recovery, seizure and sealing of the contraband opium in question, the process of law was duly followed, and thus, there was nothing on record before the learned trial court to show that the accused-respondents were wrongly implicated in the present case, more particularly, on count of their animosity with any of the prosecution witnesses.

3.5 Learned P