JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 9-9-87, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota, convicting the appellant under section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years' R.I. 2. On 23-3-85, at about 12.45 p.m., Bhopal Singh, Inspector, Narcotic Department searched a Bus No. RSG 5867 alongwith his other officers. The bus was going from Kota to Jaipur. It was stopped near Khanna Farm. The Inspector Bhopal Singh entered the bus and found that the appellant was sitting on the last seat having a bag with him. On enquiry the bag was found and when it was opened opium was found in it. In presence of the witnesses the opium was seized and sealed at the spot. The seizure memo was prepared. The appellant and the seized opium in sealed condition were brought to the Police Station, Kunnadi and an F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Narcotic Control Room, Kota, which is Ex. p. 7. the weight of the seized opium was 5 Kg. 400 grams. After completing the investigation and repeating the report of the sample of the opium from the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), the challan was submitted. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned Sessions Judge after completing the trial found that the case has been established against the appellant and he convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 3. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act say that when any officer duly authorised under the Act to search any person, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer to any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. Sub Section 2 of this Sec. says that if such requisition is made the officer may detain the person until he brings him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in Sub-sec. (1). The provisions of Section 50 of the Act are mandatory one and there is nothing on the record to show that the mandatory provision of this Section 50 of the Act has been complied with. (1). The provisions of Section 50 of the Act are mandatory one and there is nothing on the record to show that the mandatory provision of this Section 50 of the Act has been complied with. He has relied in this aspect on the case of Biram and another v. State of Rajasthan S.B Cr. Appeal No. 227/88 decided on 7-10-88 by this Court reported in 1988(2) RLR 322 . In this case it was observed that Section 50 of the Act is a mandatory provision and the S.H.O. has not stated in his statement that he has asked or he had brought to the notice of the accused-persons about the conditions of Section 50 of the Act. It means that the mandatory provision has not been followed. 4. In the present case also there is no statement to this effect that the accused was asked or the provision of Section 50 of the Act was brought to the notice of the accused-appellant. So the mandatory provision of Section 50 has not been followed here also. 5. Shri Gupta also argued that the provision of Section 55 of the Act, is also mandatory one. According, to this "An officer-in-charge of Police Station shall take charge and keep in safe custody all articles seized under this Act within the limited area of that Police Station and which may be delivered to him and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station. By referring this Section 55, it was argued that when the opium was seized it was the duty of the Inspector to bring the seized opium and the accused to the Police State on within whose area that spot falls and in presence of the Officer-in-charge of that Police Station the Narcotic Inspector should take sample. He will seal that sample in the Police Station by his own seal on which the officer-in-charge of that police station will also put his seal. This provision has not been followed. He will seal that sample in the Police Station by his own seal on which the officer-in-charge of that police station will also put his seal. This provision has not been followed. According to the statement of Narcotic Inspector Shri Bhopal Singh (PW 6), the opium was seized at the spot where the bus was checked and at that very spot he took the sample from the opium and sealed the sample as well as remaining opium at the very spot by affixing his seal on the packet. So the sample was taken by the Narcotic Inspector at the spot and he sealed that packet at that spot. He did not take the sample at the Police Station in presence of the officer-in-charge of the police station of that area. The packet in which the opium has been sealed does not bear the seal of the officer-in-charge of that police station. Therefore, it is clear that the mandatory provision of Section 55 also has not been complied. 6. Mr. Gupta also argued that section 57 of the Act was also not complied with. According to this Sec. "Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.". Why this provision has been inserted in the Act, the reason is obvious that the cases under this Act have been found of serious nature and the punishment has been made so stringent. For this offence the punishment of sentence is 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and, therefore, the legislature has given some safeguards to the accused-person. These safeguards are by way of Sections 50, 55 & 57 of the Act. When the legislation have given some safeguards to the accused persons, the prosecution agency has no right or authority to take away that right or to disobey the provisions of the Act. Therefore, on non-compliance of these provisions great prejudice ness has been caused to the accused. In order to avoid any mischief by the Investigating Officer and in order to see that a fair investigation is done these provisions have been made in the legislature. 7. Shri Gupta relied on the case of Ratan Lal v. State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 . In order to avoid any mischief by the Investigating Officer and in order to see that a fair investigation is done these provisions have been made in the legislature. 7. Shri Gupta relied on the case of Ratan Lal v. State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 . This case of Ratan Lal has been referred in the case of Biram (supra). The detail has been given in that case of Biram decided by this Court and keeping in view that judgment and also the observations made above I am of this opinion that the prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisos of the Act. Non-compliance of several provisions of the Act creates doubt and suspicion in the fairness of the investigation. When doubt is created and that doubt is with regard to mandatory provision, then benefit of doubt mute go to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has not looked this case on this aspect and has not applied his mind on the provisions of the Act. The arguments advanced by Shri Gupta has great force and I do not agree with the finding of the learned trial Court. The conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be maintained. 8. As a result, the appeal is accepted. The accused-appellant is not found guilty of the offence under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and he is acquitted. His conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. 9. The seized articles be destroyed.Appeal accepted *******