MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. Accused Prahlad, son of Babu Lal, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 4-9-99 passed by Sri S. P. Singh, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot whereby he convicted the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default in payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the prosecution of the appellant are as under. P. W. 1 Ram Naresh Singh Rathore and P. W. 3 constable Shivshanker Bharti were posted as Station Officer and constable respectively at P. S. Raipura (Chitrakoot) in the month of January, 1999. On 1st January, 1999, S. O. R. N. Singh Rathore accompanied by four constables left the police station at about 8- 05 p. m. for patrolling and in the search of wanted criminals. The police party headed by the S. O. was proceeding on foot towards Gunta Dam on canal road and had covered a distance of about one furlong from the turning of Karvi-Mau main road. They saw one person coming from the opposite direction who was having a gathari on his head. When he saw the members of the police force, he stopped for a while. On suspicion, he was intercepted by the police but he tried to run away. At about 9-00 p. m. , he was apprehended by the police force on the canal road within the jurisdiction of P. S. Raipura and the police used necessary force also. 3. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Prahlad, son of Babu Lal. He further disclosed that he was carrying Ganja in the gathari. He was apprised of his right under Section 50 of the Act that he could be taken before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer for search but he declined and offered himself for search. The S. O. made efforts to procure public witnesses. Since it was lonely place and winters night, nobody was available. On search about 9 kgs. of green Ganja was recovered from the white bag which was being carried on the head. The S. O. made efforts to procure public witnesses. Since it was lonely place and winters night, nobody was available. On search about 9 kgs. of green Ganja was recovered from the white bag which was being carried on the head. On demand, the accused could not produce the licence for having Ganja and pleaded for mercy. The S. O. disclosed the grounds of arrest and he was formally arrested by the police. 4. After seizure of Ganja, the S. O. took out 200 grams of Ganja and prepared two samples each having 100 grams, on the spot and seaded the sample. The remaining Ganja was also sealed in the same bag on the spot. A sample of seal was also prepared. A seizure memo was prepared in the light of torches, which was read over and signature of the police personnel and accused were obtained. A copy of seizure memo was also given to the accused. 5. The police party returned to the police station along with recovered Ganja, samples and the accused and on the basis of seizure memo P. W. 2 constable Ranjit Singh prepared Chik report and registered a case at crime No. 1 at 11-30 p. m. on the same night. 6. The investigation of the case was entrusted to P. W. 4 S. I. Bajrangi Singh. He started investigation on 2- 1-99 and interrogated constables Ranjit Singh, Shivshanker Bharti, Satish Dubey, Rajendra Mishra and Lal Babu Shukla. He further questioned accused Prahlad also. On 5-1-99, the I. O. visited the scene of incident along with constable Shivshanker Bharti and prepared a site-plan. He sent the sample of Ganja to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra for chemical examination and after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 7. Accused Prahlad was charged under Section 20 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P. W. 1 S. I. Ram Naresh Singh Rathore, the arresting officer, P. W. 2 constable Ranjit Singh, who prepared Chik report and made entry in the G. D. at serial No. 33 on 1-1-99, P. W. 3 constable Shivshanker Bharti, who is a witness of seizure memo and had accompanied his S. O. on the impugned night and P. W. 4 S. I. Bajrangi Singh, I. O. of the case. 9. Accused Prahlad in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. 9. Accused Prahlad in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. totally denied his complicity in the offence in question and pleaded that nothing was recovered from his possession. According to him, he was falsely implicated by the police on account of enmity with his co-villagers and he was brought to the police station from his house. He examined his co-villagers Shiv Narain as D. W. 1 and Bhaiya Lal as D. W. 2. 10. After scanning entire evidence on record led by the parties and considering the arguments also advanced on their behalf, learned Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 11. I have heard appellants learned counsel at length, learned A. G. A. and have gone through the record carefully. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment under appeal mainly on the grounds that no independent witness was examined to support the prosecution version and Ganja was never weighed by the police. There has been no sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act and the prosecution story is not acceptable. Moreover, the provisions of Section 57 of the Act were not complied with. Consequently, this appeal must succeed and the appellant deserves acquittal. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment and urged that the appellant was rightly convicted by the Court below. 14. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Having considered the entire material on record as well as arguments, I find that learned Judge was not justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of evidence on record and as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed. As noted above, the police party who apprehended the appellant on the fateful night consisted of S. O. R. N. Singh Rathore and four constables. However, the prosecution produced the S. O. and constable Shivshanker Bharti only in the witness box. P. W. 1 S. I. Ram Naresh Singh Rathore testified that the police party headed by him apprehended the appellant at about 9-00 p. m. on the canal road and he was having a gathari on his head. According to the prosecution itself after being apprehended, the appellant disclosed that he was carrying Ganja in the gathari kept on his head. According to the prosecution itself after being apprehended, the appellant disclosed that he was carrying Ganja in the gathari kept on his head. S. I. Ram Naresh Singh Rathore, therefore, apprised him of his right that he could be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, if he so desired but he did not exercise his option in this regard and agreed to give his search to him. It is noteworthy that mandatory provisions of Section 50 was not followed in this case and S. I. R. N. Singh Rathore disclosed to the appellant that he could be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer. When the accused once admitted that he was having Ganja in his gathari, the arresting officer was required under the law to inform him about his right that he could be taken to nearest Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate for search. In the instant case, the accused was given option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Police Officer or Magistrate. The law requires that offender has got a right to be searched in the presence of nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act. However, in the instant case, the arresting officer proposed that he could be taken to a Magistrate or a Gazetted Police Officer and thus, provisions of Section 50 was not complied with. It is true that S. I. R. N. Singh Rathore tried to correct himself in the Court when his statement was recorded but he failed to help the prosecution. On the other hand, learned A. G. A. urged that provisions of Section 50 were not attracted in this case. My attention was drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in Megh Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 SCC (Cri) 58, wherein it was held that provisions of Section 50 are applicable only in case of personnel search of a person and where the accused was found sitting on gunny bags, the provisions of Section 50 were not applicable. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. No doubt, so far the recovery of Ganja from the bag (Gathari) kept on the head of the appellant was concerned, the provisions of Section 50 were not attracted and the Gathari which was being carried on by the appellant was not a part of the body or person of the appellant. However, it could not be overlooked that arresting officer must have taken search of the person of the appellant also to ensure whether he was carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in his wearing apparel. 15. S. I. Rathore testified that it was lonely place and as such, no public witness was available. In cross- examination he asserted that he had sent constable Shivshanker Bharti to nearby villages. P. W. 3 Shivshanker Bharti stated that no witness was found on account of winters night. He admitted in his cross-examination that Abadi of village Raipura was situate at a distance of one furlong only from the scene of incident. He had gone to the village to search public witnesses. He, however, failed to disclose the names, fathers name and caste of the witnesses, who were asked by him to witness the arrest and seizure. He further disclosed that no villager opened the door. It is, therefore, obvious that in fact, no effort was made by the police to bring public witnesses on the spot to witness the arrest and seizure of Ganja from the possession of the appellant. 16. Admittedly, the recovered Ganja was never weighed by the police. 17. Section 57 requires that the arresting officer shall within forty eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. In the instant case, S. I. Bajrangi Singh gave out in cross-examination that he had informed the Superintendent of Police and Circle Officer through R. T. set but he sent no report in writing. As mentioned above, the law requires that a full report has to be sent to the superior officers containing all particulars of the arrest and seizure. 18. Admittedly, P. W. 4 S. I. Bajrangi Singh, I. O. of the case, was a subordinate to the arresting officer and was posted at P. S. Raipura as second officer. As mentioned above, the law requires that a full report has to be sent to the superior officers containing all particulars of the arrest and seizure. 18. Admittedly, P. W. 4 S. I. Bajrangi Singh, I. O. of the case, was a subordinate to the arresting officer and was posted at P. S. Raipura as second officer. In my opinion, the case was not properly investigated and he sent charge-sheet without having a report from the Public Analyst. According to the I. O. , the sample was sent to Agra on 16-1-99 but I find that sample was received in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra on 13-1-99 and the report was signed on 18-3-99 and the sample was found to be Ganja. 19. On the other hand, the appellant examined two defence witnesses to show that the appellant was brought to the police station from his house and was falsely implicated. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I find that the prosecution could not bring home the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence led by it was not cogent and trustworthy. In my opinion, the learned Judge erred in appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, it is held that this appeal must succeed. 21. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal allowed. .