JUDGMENT Nawab Singh, J 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated March 1,1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby Prem Singh-respondent was acquitted in case registered against him vide First Information Report (for short “FIR”) No.190 dated September 19,1994 under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) in Police Station Samana. 2. The prosecution case is that on September 19,1994, Jaswinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (for short “ASI”) (PW2) along with other Police officials was on patrol duty near High School, Dhanetha. At about 12.45 P.M. Jaswinder Singh ASI received a secret information that the accused was selling poppy husk on a mare and was present on the canal minor bridge in the area of village Marori and that he was waiting for his customers. Information (Exhibit PD) was sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR. On the basis of the same, FIR (Exhibit PD/1) was recorded. Harmail Singh, Member Panchayat of village Gajewas was joined in the investigation. Jaswinder Singh along with other Police officials and Harmail Singh reached the specified place. The accused was present. He was carrying two bags on the mare hanging towards the back of the mare. The accused was apprehended. Search of the bags was conducted. It was found that each bag contained 15 Kgs. of poppy husk. 250 grams from each bag was taken as sample. The samples so drawn and the bags containing the remainder substance were separately sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PF). Investigation at the spot was conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Case property was deposited with Moharar Head Constable, Police Station Samana. On completion of the investigation, appellant was arraigned for trial. 3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 15 of the Act and in trial that ensued, prosecution examined three witnesses, viz. Haripal Singh Head Constable (PW1), Jaswinder Singh ASI (PW2) and Jai Pal Singh Inspector (PW3). 4. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure to explain incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded innocence. 5. No evidence in defence was led. 6. State counsel has been heard. Record perused. 7. Haripal Singh Head Constable (PW1), Jaswinder Singh ASI (PW2) and Jai Pal Singh Inspector (PW3). 4. The accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure to explain incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded innocence. 5. No evidence in defence was led. 6. State counsel has been heard. Record perused. 7. Indisputably, the search was not conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate nor an offer was made to the accused as to whether he would like to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, particularly when the Investigator had the prior information. It was violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, which would per se be fatal to the prosecution case. This view finds support from Amrit Singh v. State of Haryana, 1990 (2) RCR 525. 8. Harmail Singh independent witness did not support the prosecution case, which again proves that things did not happen in the manner they have been shown to be by the prosecution. 9. One another factor which cannot lose sight of the fact is that it was the case of the prosecution that Prem Singh-respondent was selling contraband poppy husk in the area of village Marori. It is improbable, to say the least, that a person would be carrying and selling contraband poppy husk in the lanes of the village as if he was selling vegetable. It shows that prosecution version is neither natural nor it inspires confidence. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and is, therefore, upheld. 11. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.