JUDGMENT 1. - This leave to appeal by prosecution is against the judgment dated 22.2.2008 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Cases, Sriganganager whereby respondent is acquitted for offence under Section 8/21 N.D:P.S. Act. 2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned judgment. 3. Per prosecution, on 17.1.2006 at about 3.30 afternoon SHO PW-12 having received some secret information recorded as Ex.P-20 and forwarded to higher officer, Deputy, Superintendent of Police. Per prosecution, the higher information officer so informed told the SHO of he (Dy.S.P.) close himself coming to Police Station so the information was delivered only at Police Station. Meanwhile, SHO calling two independent witnesses proceeded at about 3.30 P.M. and at a photostat shop found accused-respondent, and after giving a notice under Section 50 Ex.P-2 and as he is accused expressed of his desire for search by SHO, was searched and in his pocket allegedly found. 10 Grms, and 90 m.grams. heroin was seized. Sample separately collected and sealed, it in 'Malkhana' and the same was delivered to FSL and charge sheet submitted after investigation. Among prosecution witnesses examined are said independent witnesses who are declared hostile and three other police personals who accompanied SHO do depose of recovery. 4. Learned Judge arrived at conclusions that (1) non compliance of Section 42, as no worthy evidence of higher officer, Dy. Superintendent of Police or any other having came to the Police Station. (2) Non compliance of Section 50 provisions-that on carbon copy of such memo appear non-signature of motbir whereas first copy do have (3) independent motbirs of much-distance where as accused allegedly sitting at a shop in the market having so many shops adjoining but no witness of that locality. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor states that only because no specific evidence and entry in roznamcha of the Dy.S.P. having came cannot be assumed that higher officer, who happened to be so higher for 3, 4 Police Station, did not come, receipt endorsement and signatures are on information under Section 42. Argues that compliance of Section 42 is made. Similarly submitted that proved is compliance in toto, of Section 50 provisions is made and motbirs do admit of their signature. 6. The Court considering all arguments have carefully gone through the evidence, record and judgment. A copy of information said to have been given to higher officer. Argues that compliance of Section 42 is made. Similarly submitted that proved is compliance in toto, of Section 50 provisions is made and motbirs do admit of their signature. 6. The Court considering all arguments have carefully gone through the evidence, record and judgment. A copy of information said to have been given to higher officer. is produced is Ex.P-22 certain endorsement and signature said to be of the Dy.S.P. are but no other evidence of his having come at the Police Station seems to be on record when on receipt of information premises than normally in such the compliance of are to be searched, Section 42 is ought to be made. Similarly, having a glance on the documents Ex.P-2 and copy P-32 regarding information to accused for his right under Section 50 much substance is in factual aspects as are described by learned trial Court. In view of the above cannot be said that findings of non-compliance of provision of Sections 42 and 50 are not based on cogent reason. Neither is that reasons are based and all without evidence. In view of the above and other reasons as described the judgment of the trial Court, no reasons is for granted of leave to appeal. Therefore, the leave to appeal is rejected.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******