D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant assails his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, the Act) and Sentence of R. I. for four years and fine of Rs. 10,000 in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of one year. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is, on 24. 11. 1992 around 2 p. m. P. W. 4 then Sub-Inspector of Excise, Sambalpur while on petrol duty along with other staff of the Excise Department, received a reliable information that the appellant was carrying contraband Ganja in a cycle. After recording the information so received, P. W. 4 and his staff proceeded towards village Durgapali and on the way found the appellant coming towards Sambalpur hanging a bag on the handle of his cycle. P. W. 4 after giving his identity and after disclosing the reasonable suspicion that the appellant was carrying the prohibited substance asked him to give his option if he would like to be searched before a gazetted officer. Thereafter the appellant was searched in presence of P. W. 4 and from his possession contraband Ganja weighing 800 grams was recovered. After observing all formalities P. W. 4 completed investigation and submitted prosecution report against the appellant: The appellant in the defence denied this indictment. ( 3 ) MR. P. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant raised two points while assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction. ( 4 ) SO far as the first contention of Mr. Mishra with regard to non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act is concerned, law is well settled by now that in case of such noncompliance by an authority who is empowered under the Act to carry on search and seizure, the entire proceeding shall be vitiated. On going through the evidence of P. W. 4 in para 2 of his examination-in-chief where he stated to have given option to the appellant to be searched in presence of gazetted officer, it is abundantly clear that such offer being a partial offer as has been held in the case reported in Gopal Reddy v. State, and therefore, the same vitiates the trial. On this score alone the appellant is entitled to acquittal. On this score alone the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The second contention of Mr. Mishra is that the search in presence of P. W. 4 who himself was member of the raiding party amounted to noncompliance of the provision as has been held in criminal Appeal No. 239/91, Bijay Kumar Subudhi v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 27. 1. 1995. Thus the prosecution is bad for the above reason also. ( 5 ) MR. Mishra also highlighted about the defective sealing of the substance seized. This contention has to be accepted in view of the inconsistence in the evidence of P. W. 4 the 1. 0. on the one hand and that of PW5. 1 and 2 on the other. While P. W. 4 in para 3 of his examination-in-chief stated to have sealed the polythene packet by using paper seal which contained his signature along with the signature of the appellant and the witnesses P. W. 2 did not state anything about sealing in the examination-in-chief. Rather in para 9 of his cross-examination stated that small chits were used as paper seals to be affixed on the material objects. M. O. I. , the substance seized, was not kept inside any sealed packet nor the paper seal was affixed completely surrounding the packet. If we accept this evidence, it will show as if there was no proper sealing P. W. 1 did not say anything about the sealing itself. From the evidence as discussed above, it is rather clear that there was defective sealing for which the prosecution case becomes doubtful. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Netrananda Pradhan is set aside and he be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.