Judgment S. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) INSTANT appeal impugned the judgment dated 16-8-1996 of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Alwar whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 8/20 (B) (i) and 8/20 (B) (ii) of the N. D. P. S. Act. He was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 8/20 (b), (i), in default of payment of fine he was directed to suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 8/20 (b) (ii) the appellant was further sentenced to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1. 00. 000 in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) BRIEF resume of the facts is that on the fateful day of September, 1991 at about 6 p. m. a search was conducted on the person of the accused appellant and Tganja weighing twenty grams and charas weighing thirty grams were found in the possession of the accused appellant. The accused appellant was arrested. Investigation commenced and after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was kd. Charge under Section 8/20 of the N. D. P. S. Act was framed against the accused appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Thereafter state men t of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The learned trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned Counsels for both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. ( 3 ) SHRI Rakesh Bhargava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant canvassed that the provisions contained in Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act were flouted by the prosecution. It was necessary for the prosecution to give option strictly in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the said Act, but a perusal of the evidence recorded by the prosecution demonstrates that only a partial option was given. The statements of prosecution witnesses are self-contradictory and the accused appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of such statements. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Shri M. L. Goyal. The statements of prosecution witnesses are self-contradictory and the accused appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of such statements. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Shri M. L. Goyal. learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf on the State, supported the impugned judgment and contended that Gopal Singh (P. W. 8), in examination-in- chief has categorically said that the option to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate was given to the accused appellant and he was rightly convicted. ( 5 ) I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. Exhibit P-1 is the seizure memo of ganja and charas A look at the said memo reveals that the accused appellant was asked as to whether he wanted to be searched in presence of a Magistrate. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 Deen Mohammad, who was posted as A. S. I. at Police Station Kotwali on the relevant day, deposed that Kotwal Gopal Singh asked the accused appellant as to whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer but the accused appellant refused to be searched before the Gazetted Officer and volunteered to be searched by Kotwal Gopal Singh. Thereafter he was searched by Kotwal Gopal Singh P. W. 4 Haquimuddin also deposed that the accused appellant was asked as to whether he wanted to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer. At this, the accused appellant volunteered to be searched by Station House Officer. Ban Behari (P. W. 6), who is Constable No. 138 deposed that S. H. O. informed the accused appellant that he possessed Tganja and he wanted to conduct his search. The accused appellant was asked that he could be searched in the presence of the Magistrate. Accused appellant volunteered to be searched by Station House Officer. P. W. 8 Gopal Singh, the S. H. O. , stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused appellant was asked as to whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but he volunteered to be searched by him. Two independent witnesses Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and Deen Dayal (P. W. 3) were also examined but they did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. Two independent witnesses Hem Raj (P. W. 1) and Deen Dayal (P. W. 3) were also examined but they did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. ( 7 ) THIS Court in the case of Smt. Chandi v. State of Rajasthan after discussing the cases of Miranda v. Arizona, and State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh indicated about Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act and held that the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act arc mandatory in nature. It was also held by discussing the said authority that if partial option is given to the accused it amounts to non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. ( 8 ) IN the instant case as already discussed hereinabove that in seizure memo of ganja and charas (Exhibit P-I) partial option was given to the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched by a Magistrate whereas other witnesses Deen Mohammad (P. W. 2) and Haquimuddin (P. W. 4) deposed that the accused appellant was asked as to whether the wanted be searched before the Gazetted Officer. Banbehari (P. W. 6) on the other hand stated that the accused appellant was asked as to whether he wanted be searched before a Magistrate and S. H. O. Gopal Singh (P. W. 8) deposed that the accused appellant was asked as to whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Thus, the statements of prosecution witnesses are self- contradictory and the statement of Gopal Singh. S. H. O. (P. W. 8) cannot be relied upon as it has been corroborated by the testimony of other prosecution witnesses and even from seizure memo of Tganja and charas. Thus, it appears that only partial option was given to the accused appellant and the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act have been flouted. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and the conviction of the accused appellant recorded by the learned trial judge cannot be maintained. ( 9 ) RESULTANTLY the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 16th of August, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge (N. D. P. S. Act Cases ). Alwar in Criminal Case No. 8/93 is set aside. ( 9 ) RESULTANTLY the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 16th of August, 1996 passed by the learned Special Judge (N. D. P. S. Act Cases ). Alwar in Criminal Case No. 8/93 is set aside. Accused appellant Shiv Lal Son of Lila Ram stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 8/20 (b) (i) and (ii) of the N. D. P. S. Act. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The record of the case be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed. .