JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused Mithu Singh against a judgment dated 11.6.87 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh camping at Sangaria, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He has been awarded R.I. for 10 years and a,fine of Rs. 1 lac and for non-payment, additional R.I. for 2 years. 2. The prosecution story was to the effect that a secret information was received by PW 1 Dalu Ram (an ASI of Police Station, Sangaria) to the effect that `poppy husk' was likely to be carried during the night near village Janduwaia Sikhan. The said ASI Dalu Ram along with Head Constable Abdul Qayyum and Constable Harbans Singh reached near the said village and near the Water Works, a tractor, which was being driven by the appellant was stopped. He searched the tractor and certain bags filled with `poppy husk' were recovered and the total weight was 2 Quintal 80 Kg. Accordingly, the appellant was arrested, an FIR was lodged and ultimately, a challan was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty. Dalu Ram (AS I), Harbans Singh (Constable), Abdul Qayyum (Head Constable) and Lal Singh (PW 4) were examined by the prosecution. No defence evidence was led. Arguments were heard and the impugned judgment was delivered, hence, this appeal. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and after perusal of the record of the learned trial court, I find that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court is not at all sustainable and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. PW4 Lal Singh is a police constable, who has stated that on 23.3.86, the `Malkhana In-charge' handed-over him eight packets which he carried to Jaipur and deposited in the FSL and obtained the receipt Ex.P17. He has stated that the packets were delivered to him by the `Malkhana lncharge' of police station, Sangaria. 5. Other three witnesses are the police personnel and they have corroborated the story of the alleged recovery. 6. In this way, it is apparent that initially, the secret information was received from the informer and thereafter they went-to village Jhanduwala Sikhan where the tractor was stopped and search was made. 5. Other three witnesses are the police personnel and they have corroborated the story of the alleged recovery. 6. In this way, it is apparent that initially, the secret information was received from the informer and thereafter they went-to village Jhanduwala Sikhan where the tractor was stopped and search was made. However, no compliance of Section 42 of the N.D.P.C. Act has been made and the information, which was received from the informer was never transmitted to the next higher police officer. Similarly, there is no compliance of Sec.50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Prior to the search, no option was given to the accused to get the search carried out in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 7. Similarly, there is no evidence to the effect that the sealed packets were resealed prior to their placement in the `Malkhana' of the police station, Sangaria. In this way no compliance of Sec.55 of theN.D.P.S. Act was made. 8. Similarly, there was no compliance of Sec.57 of the said Act also. It is an admitted position that no detailed report of the alleged recovery was ever transmitted to the higher police officer. 9. It is also an admitted position that apart from the police people, there is not even a slightest independent corroboration of the prosecution story. No efforts were made to call some Motbir persons before the search was made. In such serious cases, in which the minimum sentence awardable is 10 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs. I lac, it is never safe to find the accused guilty without slightest independent.corroboration. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the ASI Dalu Ram (PW 1) was incompetent and unauthorised to carry out a search in such a case and the alleged search by him was without jurisdiction. In another incident of similar nature dated 26.4.87, the same ASI Dalu Ram of police station, Sangaria had conducted a search and another accused Mithu Singh was challenged under Sec.8/15 ofthe N.D.P.S': Act. In the ruling reported in Mithu Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr.LR (Raj.) 74) , this court has held that being an ASE of the police station, he was not competent and authorised to conduct the search and the search was without jurisdiction and consequently, the entire trial was vitiated.In the result the appeal is allowed. In the ruling reported in Mithu Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr.LR (Raj.) 74) , this court has held that being an ASE of the police station, he was not competent and authorised to conduct the search and the search was without jurisdiction and consequently, the entire trial was vitiated.In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 11.6.1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Hanumangarh is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. Appeal allowed. *******