JUDGMENT V.K. Agrawal, J. 1. The accused/appellant stands convicted under Section 20(b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' in short) and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of which to undergo S. I. for one year. 2. The prosecution case stated in brief is that on 18-9-1996, Sub- Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3) who was posted at Police Station Chandameta received information from an informer that a person having 'ganja' in the bag has gone to the market side. He recorded the above information and prepared panchnama (Ex.P-2). He proceeded to Chandameta Bazar. He saw the accused/appellant with a bag going on the road. He made enquiry from the accused/appellant and after intimating him, whether he wishes to get searched by a Magistrate or a Senior Police Officer or by Ramsewak (P.W.3) himself, and on the accused/appellant expressing his consent to be searched by the latter, a search of the bag of appellant was conducted. About 5 kgs. of 'ganja' was found kept in the bag. The 'ganja' was seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P-1). Out of seized 'ganja' 50 gms. was taken out as samples. The appellant was arrested. The seized 'ganja' was sealed as per panchnama (Ex.P-5) at the police station. FIR (Ex.P-9) was recorded and offence was registered. 3. During investigation, the seized 'ganja' was sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. Sagar, vide memo (Ex.P-10). The report received from F.S.L. Sagar is (Ex.P-11), which confirmed that the seized article was 'ganja'. After concluding formalities of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. 4. The accused/appellant abjured guilt to the charge under Section 20(b) (i) of the Act. His plea is that he has been falsely implicated. 5. The learned trial Court after scrutiny and assessment of evidence has concluded that from the evidence in the case, it has been amply established that the accused/appellant was in possession of 'ganja', which was seized from him. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as has been pointed out earlier. 6. His plea is that he has been falsely implicated. 5. The learned trial Court after scrutiny and assessment of evidence has concluded that from the evidence in the case, it has been amply established that the accused/appellant was in possession of 'ganja', which was seized from him. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as has been pointed out earlier. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has urged that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with and the panchnama (Ex.P-3) would indicate that the accused/appellant was not properly apprised of his right of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It has also been urged that the various panchnamas, including seizure memo prepared in the case would indicate that they were not prepared at the spot. The investigation was therefore not impartial and cannot be relied upon. The statement of investigating officer Ramsewak (P.W.3) is not supported by any independent witnesses. 7. It may be noticed that Ramsewak (P.W.3) states that after recording information received from an informer in panchnama (Ex.P-3), he proceeded in search of the person regarding whom the above information was received. He found the accused/appellant moving on the road with a bag. The Sub-Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3) made enquiry from him and intimated him of his right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. However, the panchnama (Ex.P-3) itself does not indicate that the accused/appellant was properly apprised of his right. In the panchnama it has been mentioned that accused was asked as to whether he would like to be searched before the Magistrate or Senior Officer or by Sub-Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3). Therefore, from (Ex.P-3) it does not appear that the accused/appellant was intimated about his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, as Ramsewak (P.W.3) has chosen to state during trial. His statement as above, which is. inconsistent with the panchnama (Ex.P-3) prepared in this regard, cannot be relied upon. Thus, full and proper compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act, has not been made. 8. His statement as above, which is. inconsistent with the panchnama (Ex.P-3) prepared in this regard, cannot be relied upon. Thus, full and proper compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act, has not been made. 8. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of Orissa High Court in case of Gopal Reddy v. State, 1995 (2) Crimes 155 , in which the accused before search was only asked if he wanted to be taken, before a Magistrate, but no offer was given to be taken before a Gazetted Officer. It was held that since there was only partial compliance of Section 50 of the 'Act' and since the accused was not properly apprised of his right for being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, such partial compliance would not meet the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi High Court in case of Manak Chand Jain v. State, reported in 1994 (3) Crimes 442 . 9. It may further be noticed that Sub-Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3) has stated that the seizure memo (Ex.P-1) was prepared on the spot. However, from the said seizure memo it would appear that the crime number had been mentioned therein. Obviously if the F.I.R. was recorded subsequently after the seziure after Ramsewak (P.W.3) had come back to the Police Station, Crime number could not have been mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex.P-1). 10. It is further to be noticed that the consent panchnama (Ex.P-3) also indicates that it was prepared at Thana Chandameta, as has been mentioned therein. Similar is the position regarding the weighment panchnama (Ex.P-5) and arrest memo of appellant (Ex.P-4). All the above documents show that they were prepared at the Police Station. Sub-Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3) however has stated that the discrepancy as above was inadvertent and the above documents were in fact prepared at the spot. It further appears that the panchnamas as above were not prepared by Ramsewak (P.W.3), but were got prepared by the Police Constable, as he has himself admitted. 11. Thus, the statement as above of Sub-Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3) and the contents of documents prepared during investigation would show that the proceedings of investigation in fact did not take place at the spot; but were conducted and recorded at the Police Station. 11. Thus, the statement as above of Sub-Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3) and the contents of documents prepared during investigation would show that the proceedings of investigation in fact did not take place at the spot; but were conducted and recorded at the Police Station. It also appears that the Sub- Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3) did not attach much importance to the proceedings of search, seizure, etc., and directed a constable to prepare the documents, on which he merely put his signatures. This clearly shows the lack of care and attention in conducting proceedings during investigation, by Sub-Inspector Ramsewak (P.W.3). The lacunae as above in the investigation render the prosecution case infirm and doubtful. In the circumstances, solitary testimony of Ramsewak (P.W.3) cannot be relied upon. 12. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court, cannot be sustained and the conviction and sentence of the accused/appellant deserves to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of accused/appellant in the circumstances of the case are set aside. He is acquitted. He may be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.