The State has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of acquittal passed by the XXXIII Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge & Spl. Judge (NDPS), Bangalore. CCH.33 in

Spl.C.C.No.409/2016 dated 13.02.2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on

25.03.2016 at 12.45 am, P.I, Agrahara P.S., Bangalore got

information that below fly over, 2^nd Stage, towards Tata BP

Solar, in a remote place, two persons aged about 35-40 years

old were selling brown sugar to the public. Therefore, he

secured panchas and along with his staff went to the said place

and apprehended two persons. In the presence of the gazetted

officer, accused No.1 was searched and he had 480 gms of

brown sugar and from accused No.2, 460 gms of brown sugar

- 3 -

was seized under mahazar. Accused nos.1 and 2 were arrested

and produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial

custody. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has

submitted a charge sheet for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act. The trial Court

has framed charges and the same was read over and explained

to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and came to be

tried. In support of the case, prosecution examined in all nine

witnesses as PWs 1 to 9 and got marked 26 documents as

Exs.P.1 to P.26 and Material Objects 1 to 5. On closure of

prosecution side evidence, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused

were examined and they have denied the incriminating

circumstances appeared against them but they have not chosen

to adduce evidence on their behalf. On hearing the arguments

of both sides, the trial Court has passed the impugned

judgment of acquittal.

4. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the State has

preferred this appeal.

5. Learned HCGP submitted that the impugned

judgment under order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is

- 4 -

contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record,

probabilities of the case and same is liable to be set-aside; The

trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record

in a proper and perspective manner. The trial Court has

erroneously held that there is no compliance of Section 50 of

the NDPS Act without appreciating that search was conducted

before the Gazetted Officer. On these grounds, learned HCGP

sought for allowing the appeal.

6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent submitted his arguments that the Investigating

Officer has not complied the mandatory provisions of Sections

42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court has properly

appreciated the evidence on record on law and facts and that

there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of

acquittal and sought for dismissal of the appeal. To

substantiate his arguments, he relied on the following

decisions:

(i) KISHAN CHAND vs STATE OF HARYANA reported in

(2013)2 SCC 502

(ii) KARNAL SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA reported in

2009 CRL.L.J. 4299

- 5 -

(iii) VIJAYSINH CHANDUBHA JADEJA vs

STATE

OF

GUJARAT reported in 2011 CRL.L.J. 680

7. I have carefully examined the impugned judgment

of acquittal. In paragraphs 8 to 25, the trial Court has observed

as under:

"8. POINT NO.1: The learned P.P. vehemently

argued that as per evidence of PWs. 1 to P.W.9 and

Exs.P.1 to P.26 and M.Os.1 to 5, the prosecution

proved the guilt. Learned counsel for accused argued

that no mandatory provision complied and so many

contradictions

and

discrepancies

found

in

the

prosecution witnesses.

9. On careful perusal of the materials placed on

record,

the

prosecution

mainly

relied

on

the

testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6.

PW.5 has stated that on 25.3.2015 at 12.45 noon,

informant came to the station and gave information

that at below Electronic city flyover, towards Tata BP

Solar road side, two persons were selling brown

sugar. He reduced the information to SHD as per

Ex.P12 and informed to the supe