JUDGMENT D P. Sood, J.—State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the judgment dated June 18, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu whereby the respondent-accused stood acquitted in the commission of the offence under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter shortly referred to as the Act). 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that on 24-10-1991 the police party headed by A.S.I. Parkash Chand (PW 5) was on patrol duty. At about 5 p.m. they saw the accused coming towards them, who on seeing the police party, tried to run away towards bus stand, Bhuntar whereupon the police party feeling suspicious of some commission of the offence under the Act, apprehended him. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was then apprised of the grounds of arrest and also asked as to whether he wanted his search to be conducted by them or before the gazetted officer, through writings Ex. PF. Further, case is that on refusal of the respondent to get himself searched by the police, he was being taken to Kullu, on the way S. D. M. Shri Brijinder Kumar (PW 8) met them. Accordingly, a request was made to him and the respondent was searched in his presence. On search a bag was found containing a sweater Ex. P-5 and charas Ex. P-l and P-2 weighing 1 500 Kg. Sample to the extent of 25 grams of charas thereafter was taken for analysis and both the samples as also remaining bulk was sealed with seal impression ‘P’ The sample was sent to chemical examination and vide report Ex. PJ, it was found to be that of charas. Thus on completion of the challan, the respondent stood prosecuted by the polite. 3. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement under section 313 of Code @f Criminal Procedure, he raised a defence of denial simplicitor. 4. The learned trial Court found non-compliance of mandatory pro visions of sections 52, 55 and 57 of the Act and consequently directed the acquittal of the accused. 5. We have closely examined the entire evidence on record. In his statement under section 313 of Code @f Criminal Procedure, he raised a defence of denial simplicitor. 4. The learned trial Court found non-compliance of mandatory pro visions of sections 52, 55 and 57 of the Act and consequently directed the acquittal of the accused. 5. We have closely examined the entire evidence on record. We find that the reasons given by the trial Court for directing acquittal of the accused are cogent and convincing In the first instance, the respondent-accused was asked whether he wanted to get himself searched by the police party to which he refused. That document is in writing but was not either relied upon nor it was found mentioned in the list of documents annexed with the challan nor it was delivered to the accused as is envisaged under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The perusal of this document also shows that the accused refused to render himself to a search but wanted to be searched before the Magistrate. According to PW 5 Investigating Officer the accused was intimated as to the grounds of his arrest vide writing Ex. PA. Again this document was not found with the challan nor it was mentioned in the list of documents nor delivered to the respondent. Documents having been produced before the court during the course of production of the evidence, raise a doubt as to whether the respondent was apprised of his right at the material time or not. The court below was absolutely right in having entertained the objection raised by the defence with respect to the admissibility of above said two documents. We are in agreement with the reasonings given by the trial Court, in rejecting the evidence to this extent so adduced by the prosecution. Another illegality committed by the prosecution appears to be the non-compliance of section 57 of the Act. No doubt Hira Lai (PW 2) who is a responsible officer and was holding the post of A. S. L, states that special report in the case was received on October 25, 1991, but on being called for to produce the record with respect to the receipt of the report, neither its receipt was found entered in the Register nor the special report was produced. 6. This Court in catena of cases held that sections 50, 52 (1), 55 and 57 of the Act are mandatory. 6. This Court in catena of cases held that sections 50, 52 (1), 55 and 57 of the Act are mandatory. One of those cases is that of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar and others, as reported in 1989 Cri LJ 1412. 7 In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, as such leave to appeal is declined. Cr. MP (M) No. H7/93 and Cr. MP No. 53 of 1993. In view of the stand of the main case on merits, these applications become infructuous and are disposed of. Order accordingly.