JUDGMENT This appeal is directed by the accused against the judgment and order dated 12.1.89 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, camp Manasa, in S.T. No. 143/88 whereby the appellant Bhuralal @ Bhura was convicted u/s 8/18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (For short 'the Act' and sentenced to ten years RI and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine one year's further RI. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 9.3.88 at 2.45 p.m. SHO Ramdev Singh Sikarwar (PW 1) received information from Mukhbir that Bhuralal @ Bhura was going to transport opium on cycle. He recorded information vide Ex. P-11 and thereafter called punch-witnesses Kailashchand (PW 2) and Roopa (PW 5) and went on the spot at 5.00 p.m. The appellant came riding on cycle with a plastic bag. He was apprehended. On search 2 kg. and 300 gms. of opium was found in the bag. It was seized. Samples were drawn and were sent to Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Works Neemuch for chemical examination. The chemical examiner opined that the samples contained opium. After completion of investigation, challen was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned trial Judge after appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence, this appeal. Shri Vivek Singh, LC for the appellant, submitted that much before seizure of the opium, I.O. Ramdevsingh Sikarwar had received information regarding transporting of opium by the appellant and thereafter reached on the spot and apprehended the appellant and allegedly seized opium from his possession without complying with the provisions of section 50 of the Act, therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. He put reliance on 1994 SC 1872, State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1995 SC 244 Ali Mustaffa Abdul Moosa v. State of Kerala and 1995 SC 1157, Mohinder Kumar v. The State, Panaji, Goa, Shri P. Verma, Dy. GA supported the impugned judgment. I considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. From the statement of Ramdevsingh (PW 1), it is clear that on 9.3.88 at 2.45 p.m. he received information that the appellant was transporting opium on his cycle. In consequence to this information, he went on the spot, the appellant came there at 5.00 p.m. He was apprehended and 2 kg. and 300 gms. of alleged opium was seized from him. In consequence to this information, he went on the spot, the appellant came there at 5.00 p.m. He was apprehended and 2 kg. and 300 gms. of alleged opium was seized from him. This witness or punch-witnesses did not state that the appellant was asked whether he wanted to be searched before Gazetted Officer or magistrate. It is, thus, clear that the provisions of section 50 of the Act were not complied with. The Apex Court in case of Balbir Singh, Ali Mustaffa Moosa and Mohinder Kumar (supra) held that the provisions of section 50 of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance thereof entitles acquittal. In view of this, the appellant deserves acquittal. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court are set-aside and he is acquitted of the charge u/s 8/18 of the Act. He is on bail, his bail-bonds are discharged: