P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant assails the order of conviction under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'n. D. P. S. Act') and sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of rupees one lakh,in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment far two years, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, in Sessions Trial No. 20/251 of 1992. ( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is as follows: On 7-10-1992 at about 7. 30 p. m. , Shri U. K. Mallik, S. I. of Police of Capital Police Station, was on special petrol duty along with other officials. Information was received from reliable source that a person named Suresh was selling brown sugar near a 'jhumpudi' hotel in front of Bank Colony, Unit-IV. After getting information, it is alleged that the S. I. of Police sent a requisition to the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, to depute an Executive Magistrate and accordingly Executive Magistrate Shri A. C. Behora (P. W. 1) accompanied the police party. The raiding party went to the spot and it was found that two persons ran away seeing the police. The raiding party after pursuing caught-hold of accused Suresh Kumar Sahu, the appellant. The search of the accused was taken in presence of the Executive Magistrate as well as other members of the raiding party and six number of paper packets containing brown sugar weighing about 660 milligrams and cash of Rs. 70/- from the person of the accused were seized. Subsequently, after seizure F. I. R. was registered and the appellant had to face trial under Section 21 of the N. D. P. S. Act. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused was one of denial. ( 4 ) IN support of the prosecution case, eleven witnesses were examined out of whom P. W. 9 is the S. I. of Police who led the raiding party; P. W. 1 is the Executive Magistrate who accompanied the prosecution party; P. W. 2, a Havildar, P. Ws. ( 4 ) IN support of the prosecution case, eleven witnesses were examined out of whom P. W. 9 is the S. I. of Police who led the raiding party; P. W. 1 is the Executive Magistrate who accompanied the prosecution party; P. W. 2, a Havildar, P. Ws. 5, 6 and 7, the sub-staff of police and P. W. 11, the Driver of the jeep were part of the raiding party; P. W. 3 is the goldsmith in whose shop the seized articles were weighed; P. W. 4 is the Assistant Director of the State F. S. L. , Rsulgarh, who chemically analysed the seized article; P. W. 8 was a witness at the time of weighment of the seized articles; and P. W. 10 is another, S. I. of Police of Kharvelnagar Police Station who took up the investigation and filed chargesheet. Relying upon the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 21 of the N. D. P. S. Act for being in possession of brown sugar and sentenced him, as indicated above. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has assailed the order of conviction on several grounds. He has contended that there has been violation of mandatory requirements of Section 42 as well as Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. It is also contended that provisions of Section 55 of the N. D. P. S. Act were violated and there is no acceptable evidence regarding proper sealing and custody of the seized articles. The learned Standing Counsel has supported the order of conviction. ( 6 ) IT is admitted by the prosecution that the search was effected pursuant to information received by P. W. 9. None of the witnesses has spoken about such information having been reduced to writing. On the other hand, P. W. 9 has categorically admitted that the information received by him was not reduced in writing. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 70 CR (SC) 283 : (1994 Cri LJ 3702), the requirement regarding reducing the information to writing is mandatory. Relying upon the aforesaid decision. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994) 70 CR (SC) 283 : (1994 Cri LJ 3702), the requirement regarding reducing the information to writing is mandatory. Relying upon the aforesaid decision. similar view has been expressed in the case of Balbir Singh v. State of Orissa, (1996) 11 Ori CR 9 and in the case of Surendranath Mohanty v. State of Orissa. (1996) 11 Ori CR 130. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, it is apparent that the entire prosecution case is affected and the trial is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the aforesaid mandatory requirement of Section 42 (1) of the N. D. P. S. Act. The appellant is entitled to be acquitted on this ground alone. 6a. It is the prosecution case that the search and seizure took place in presence of P. W. 1, the Executive Magistrate. Though most of the prosecution witnesses have stated about the presence of P. W. 1 at the time of search and seizure, it is evident from the evidence of P. W. 1 himself that he was not present at the spot at the time of actual search and he was sitting in the police vehicle which was definitely at a distance, as the accused person had run away and was apprehended and searched and the alleged incriminating articles were seized from him at a distance from the police jeep. In paragraph 6 of his deposition, P. W. 1 has stated that he was alone sitting inside the police jeep and S. I. Shri Mallik and all the police constables got down from the jeep and chased the accused person. Even the aforesaid evidence of P. W. 1 is not acceptable in view of the statement of P. W. 6 who was part of the raiding party. P. W. 5 has stated in paragraph 3 of his deposition :-". . . The seizure-list was prepared in Kharvelnagar Police Station in presence of the Magistrate. The Magistrate was in Kharvelnagar Police Station and he was not at the spot. . . . . . . . "in paragraph 4, he further stated that he was all along with P. W. 9 till the seizure-list was preparedin Kharvelnagar Police Station. . . The seizure-list was prepared in Kharvelnagar Police Station in presence of the Magistrate. The Magistrate was in Kharvelnagar Police Station and he was not at the spot. . . . . . . . "in paragraph 4, he further stated that he was all along with P. W. 9 till the seizure-list was preparedin Kharvelnagar Police Station. From the aforesaid materials on record, it becomes doubtful if the accused was, in fact, searched in presence of the Magistrate (P. W. 1 ). Even otherwise, the Magistrate himself being admittedly part of the raiding party, it cannot be said that provision of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act had been complied with, as has been observed by this Court in the case of Bijaya Kumar Subudhi v. State of Orissa, (1995) 8 Ori CR 315. None of the witnesses including P. W. 9 himself has stated anything about any option being given to the accused of being searched either before a nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate. In such view of the matter, it is evident that the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act have not been complied with and as such it must be held that the trial was vitiated, as observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1994) 7 Ori CR (SC) 283 : (1994 Cri LJ 3702) (supra ). 6b. There is no acceptable evidence on record regarding proper sealing and proper custody of the seized articles. Most of the prosecution witnesses do not state anything about the seized articles being sealed in their presence. Even the order-sheet of the Magistrate before whom the seized articles were produced on 20-10-1992 does not disclose that the seized articles had been produced in a sealed cover and seal was in tact. The seized articles remained either with P. W. 9 or P. W. 10. In the absence of any evidence regarding sealing and proper custody, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion that the articles alleged to have been seized from the accused were, in fact, the articles which were subsequently produced before the Magistrate on 20-10-1992. The seized articles remained either with P. W. 9 or P. W. 10. In the absence of any evidence regarding sealing and proper custody, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion that the articles alleged to have been seized from the accused were, in fact, the articles which were subsequently produced before the Magistrate on 20-10-1992. On account of the aforesaid lack of evidence regarding sealing and proper custody of the seized articles, the accused is entitled to an order of acquittal, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Valsala v. State of Kerala, (1993) 6 Ori CR (SC) 457 : AIR 1994 SC 117 : (1994 Cri LJ 1), which has been subsequently followed in a spate of decisions of this Court including the decisions reported in (1994) 7 Ori CR 108 (Laxmidhar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa) and (1994) 7 Ori CR 446 : (1995 Cri LJ 82) (Ajaya Kumar Naik v. State of Orissa ). ( 7 ) IN view of all the aforesaid glaring defects in the prosecution case, the appeal is bound to be allowed. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detailed in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed.