1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. against the judgment dated 30.6.1995, passed in Sessions Trial No. 459/94. by sixth Additional Sessions Judge. Ujjain against acquittal of the respondent under Section 8 read with Section 20(h) (ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to 'NDPS Act').

2. The brief facts of the case as found by the trial Court are that on 7.101994. Shri N.S.Chandrawat. Station House Officer, Central Police Station Kotwali. Ujiain received information through an informant that one person is going from Nazar Ali bus-stand to Kanthal area alongwith 'Charas'. The information was recorded in 'Rojnamcha sanha'. and was sent to Shri K.B. Bundels. C.S.P. in writing. It is alleged that pursuant to this when police party reached near Mankamneshwar Mandir. they found a person alongwith attache there. At that time C.S.P. Bundela also reached there. The person was stopped and asked for his search. He was told that he could get himself searched before a magistrate or a Gazetted officer. The prosecution alleges that Ram Kumar contended that he preferred to he searched by C.S.P. Panchanama Ex. P-12 was prepared. He was found to he carrying 800 gm. article like that or 'Charas'. It was seized. The search taken vide seizure memo Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-7. 50gm. 50gm. samples of the article seized was taken out which was sent to the Public Analyst for testing vide Ex. P-20 to Indore. and its report is Ex. P-19.

3. After investigation 'Challan' was filed before the Sessions Judge and thereafter it was transferred to the Special Judge. i.e. sixth Additional Sessions .Judge. Ujjain who tried the case.

4. On 6.1.1995 charge under Section 8 read with Section 20(h)(ii) of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused/respondent. Respondent denied the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated because of the complaint made by him to the various authorities against Vinita Sharma daughter of Deputy Superintendent of Police Pyarelal Vashishta who was running a gas agency. The respondent contended that he is a social and political worker and is a President of 'Gahoi Vaishya Navyauvak Sangh'. Datia and in that capacity he had complained against Vinita Sharma to various authorities because of which Shri Vashishta, Dy. S.P. was annoyed with him and he has been implicated by the police falsely at the behest or Shri Vasllishta.

5. The prosecution in this case examined Kishor (PW 1). Heera Lal (PW 2). Gop Naik (PW 3). Jainarayan (PW 4). Vikram Rao (PW 5). N.S. Chandrawat (PW 6). R.A. Mahiwal (PW 7) and Kamal Singh Bundela (PW 8) in support or its case. On the other hand, the accused respondent exqmined Ratan lal (DW 1) in defence and produced documents.

6. The Learned trial Judge after considering material and the evidence acquired the respondent-accused of the charge u/s 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS ACI.

7. The learned trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence. in paragraph 23 of the judgment specifically held that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. In this connection the trial Court discussed the evidence of P.W.6 N.S. Chandrawat, P.W. 8 K.S. Bundela in paragraphs 17 and 18. PW 7 R.A. Mahiwal in paragraph 19. PW 5 Vikram Rao in paragraph 20 and Kishor (PW 1) in paragraph 21 of the judgment and found that there are contradictions in the evidence of Investigating Officer and the statements of the other prosecution witnesses. 'The search of the accused-respondent was not properly taken. The trial Court further found in paragraph 23 of the judgment that near Mankameshwar Mandir where the accused respondent was found, there gaze lied officers were available for search hut no effort was made to that effect. Even Ex.P-14-B panchnama is merely a ritual formality and there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court below has further found that the prosecution witnesses (PW