Gita Mittal, C.J.—This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 31st October, 2016 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah in the case titled State v. Ikhlaq Ahmed arising out of the FIR No.22/2010 registered by Police Station, Bhaderwah under Sections 8/18/20/21/22/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

2. We have received the record from the Sessions Court and heard Shri F A Natnoo, learned AAG appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ankush Manhas, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel have carefully taken us to the record of the case and we have given our considered thought to the submissions made.

3. The case of the prosecution briefly considered was that on the 28th of January, 2010, the police received information that Ikhlaq Ahmed and Imtiaz Ahmed were in the trade of narcotics; that Ikhlaq Ahmed (respondent herein) had received heroine from Imtiaz Ahmed and was on his way towards Khellani Doda-Bhaderwah road.

4. The Police party headed by PW-6 Inspector Tilak Raj Bhardwaj which received information about the above, was already on nakka duty at Senai Khellani Morh.

5. On basis of the docket issued by Inspector Tilak Raj Bhardwaj at Police Station, Bhaderwah, Crime No.22/2010 for commission of offences punishable under sections 18/20/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered. Investigation thereof was entrusted to PW-8 Abdul Qayoom Dy.SP who reached the spot with his team. The respondent Ikhlaq Ahmed was apprehended by the police.

6. It was claimed that option of search under section 50 of the NDPS Act was given by the Investigating Officer to the respondent who consented for his search by the Dy.SP. Upon search, a leather packet containing some intoxicating substance was recovered which was seized on the spot.

7. The recovered substance weighed 500 grams from which two samples of 10 grams each were taken out and sealed.

8. The remaining seized material was sealed separately and the parcels were marked as A, B and C.

9. During investigation, the parcels were re-sealed. One parcel sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu for chemical analysis. Shri Pawan Abrol, Scientific Officer, FSL, Jammu, who has been examined during trial as PW-5, tested the seized contraband and opined presence of Diacetyle Morphine (Heroin) in the seized material.

10. Statement of witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, on 10th May, 2010, the SHO, Police Station, Bhaderwah presented the charge sheet against the two persons namely Ikhlaq Ahmed (the respondent herein) and Imtiaz Ahmed for commission of offences under sections 8/18/20/21/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

11. It appears that on a consideration of the evidence, Imtiaz Ahmed came to be discharged vide order dated 27th October, 2010 of the Trial Court. This order has attained finality. We consequently consider the case of the prosecution only in respect of the allegations against the respondent (Ikhlaq Ahmed).

12. By the same order, on a consideration of the material placed by the prosecution, the Trial Court framed formal charges for commission of offences under sections 8/20/21 and 22 of the NDPS Act against the respondent. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

13. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of the charges during trial.

14. On 12th May, 2016, the respondent was examined under section 342 CrPC and was given an opportunity to explain the incriminating evidence which had been led by the prosecution. The respondent disputed the recovery of any contraband from his possession, alleged that he had been falsely implicated and that the witnesses have given false statements against him. Upon a detailed consideration of the evidence in its entirety and the applicable law, the learned Trial Judge found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, by the j