R. P. AWASTHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 28. 10. 199 1 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No. 87/91 holding the accused/appellant guilty for committing the offence punishable u/s 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act in short) and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. lakh or in default to further undergo R. I. for 6 months. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 10. 5. 199 1 a about 8. 00 p. m. , Sub Inspector Shri D. P. Thakur and ASI Shri Pandey informed the Station House Officer Shri Y. P. Yadav (P. W. 3) that the accused was roaming near Bukhari Petrol Pump Bilaspur for selling brown sugar. On receipt of the said information, Shri. Y. P. Yadav (P. W. 3) called Ajay Masih (P. W. 2) and Ravi Shankar Shukla (P. W. 1), and all of them, proceeded towards Bukhari Petrol Pump, Bilaspur. They found the accused/appellant Nitish Kumar Jam alias Tingu standing near a scooter near the cross road which is situated near Bukhari Petrol Pump. Shri Y. P. Yadav (P. W. 3) took personal search of the accused/appellant in presence of the said witnesses Shri R. S. Shukla (P. W. 1) and Shri Ajay Masih (P. W. 2): ( 3 ) ON the said search being made. One match box was found kept in the pocket of fullpant of the accused. On opening the said match box, three small packets containing 1 gram of brown sugar each was found kept in the said match box. Three rolled paper for smoking brown sugar, which were stained with it, two coins of 50 paise stained with brown sugar and Rs. 56. 50 paise were also found in the said match box which was recovered from the concealed pocket of the fullpant which the accused was wearing at that time. The said articles were seized from the accused as per seizure memo (Ex. P. 1 ). The scooter which the accused was having was also seized as per seizure memo (Ex. P. 2 ). Thereafter, Shri Y. P. Yadav (P. W. 3) returned to the police station along with accused where Shri. Y. P. Yadav recorded the first information report (Ex. P. 5 ). P. 1 ). The scooter which the accused was having was also seized as per seizure memo (Ex. P. 2 ). Thereafter, Shri Y. P. Yadav (P. W. 3) returned to the police station along with accused where Shri. Y. P. Yadav recorded the first information report (Ex. P. 5 ). ( 4 ) THE articles seized in accordance with the seizure memo (Ex. P. 1), were sent along with letter (Ex. P. 6) to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. According to the report (Ex. P. 7) of the Chemical Examiner, the small packets containing brown sugar were found to be containing 0. 542 grams, 0. 366 and 0:365 gram of whitish powder. On chemically examining the said powder, it was found to be diacetylmorphine (brown sugar), according to the said report (Ex. P. 7) of the chemical examiner. ( 5 ) THE accused denied the said allegations and pleaded not guilty. ( 6 ) HIS contention is that his brother was detained u/s 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at police station, Tahbahar, Bilaspur. He had gone to meet him. There was some altercation between him and Shri Yadav (P. W. 3 ). There upon, Shri Yadav took him also under custody and confined him in the lock up of the said police station. ( 7 ) AFTER recording the evidence in the case, learned Sessions Judge held the accused/appellant guilty and sentenced him as detailed above. ( 8 ) IT has been argued for the accused/appellant that both of the witnesses Shri R. S. Shukla (P. W. 1) and Shri Ajay Masih (P. W. 2) have not supported the prosecution version and after declaring them hostile both have been cross-examined for the prosecution. The present accused/ appellants have been held guilty only on the basis of solitary testimony given by Shri Y. P. Yadav (P. W. 3 ). It has to be seen that the mandatory provisions contained in section 50 (1) of the Act have not been complied with in the present case. Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted on the said ground alone. Reliance has been placed on Onkar v. State of M. P. , Mohd. Nabi v. State of M. P. , Mohan Lal v. State of M. P. , Salamat Ali v. State of M. P. , Gurucharan Singh v. State of MP. , Surajbali v. State of MP. . Reliance has been placed on Onkar v. State of M. P. , Mohd. Nabi v. State of M. P. , Mohan Lal v. State of M. P. , Salamat Ali v. State of M. P. , Gurucharan Singh v. State of MP. , Surajbali v. State of MP. . ( 9 ) IT has further been argued that the mandatory provisions contained in section 57 of the Act have also not been complied with as there is no evidence available on record to indicate that Shri Y. P. Yadav had sent any report of arrest of the accused/appellant and seizure of the said articles within 48 hours to his immediate superior officer. On this score also, the appellant is entitled for being acquitted. Reliance has been placed on Sampat Lal v. State of M. P. ( 10 ) IN reply, the impugned judgment has been supported by the learned Govt. Advocate. ( 11 ) THERE is no evidence available that in cross examination the provisions contained in sub-section (I) of section 50 of the Act, Shri Y. P. Yadav, who conducted the search of the accused/ appellant informed him of his right to opt for his search being taken in presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate. On the other hand, it appears from the testimony given by Shri. Y. P. Yadav that the accused/appellant was not informed regarding the said right of the accused/appellant. Therefore, the accused/appellant is entitled for being acquitted on the said score alone. ( 12 ) IT has further to be seen that though Shri Y. P. Yadav has deposed that after recording the First Information Report (Ex. p. 5), he had sent a written report to his superior officer regarding arrest of the accused and seizure of the incriminating articles seized in the case within one hour of the arrest and the said seizure. However, no copy of such written report has been placed on record of the present case. In absence of the said documentary evidence, which was available, the oral testimony given by Shri Y. P. Yadav, cannot be accepted. Therefore, on this score also, the accused is entitled for being acquitted. ( 13 ) IN the result, the present appeal is allowed. The said accused/appellant is held not guilty. It is ordered that the accused/appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. Therefore, on this score also, the accused is entitled for being acquitted. ( 13 ) IN the result, the present appeal is allowed. The said accused/appellant is held not guilty. It is ordered that the accused/appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. Appeal allowed, Accused held not guilty. .