JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - In this appeal against acquittal, the State assails the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 220/56 of 1994, wherein the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 21.09.1994 in the afternoon, the Officer In-Charge, Rairakhol Police Station received reliable information about possession of Ganja by the respondent. Hence, he immediately went to the grocery shop of the petitioner and in presence of independent witnesses, searched the shop and detected Ganja weighing 2 Kg. 50 grams. So he seized the same as per the procedure laid down, collected samples there from, arrested the accused and drew up a plain paper F.I.R. After registration of the case, the samples were sent for chemical examination and upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the respondent. 3. The defence took the plea of simple denial. The respondent contended that while he was moving in the bus-stand, he was caught and brought to the Police Station and has been implicated in this case, falsely. 4. Prosecution has examined five witnesses out of which three are independent witnesses and two are police personnel. Learned trial Court having taken into consideration the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that there has been violation of the provisions of Section 42(2) and Section 52(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act. In assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that Section 52(1) of the Act is not a mandatory provision and in this case provision of Section 42(2) is not applicable as search and seizure has been made during day time. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 5. It is seen that in this case, the Investigating Officer has raided the shop during day time and has allegedly seized the Ganja. u/s 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Officer has the authority to enter into the dwelling house, vessels etc. 5. It is seen that in this case, the Investigating Officer has raided the shop during day time and has allegedly seized the Ganja. u/s 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Officer has the authority to enter into the dwelling house, vessels etc. for conducting any search without warrant, if he has reason to believe and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under the Act has been committed. However, it is further provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for escape of an offenders, he may enter and search such dwelling house, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise and after recording grounds for his belief. Sub-section (2) provides that an officer takes down any information in writing or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy there of to his immediate superior official. The learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer has not reduced into writing the reasons for him to believe that the accused had contraband store either in his shop nor any such writing has been submitted to the superior officer within the stipulated period. Hence, there is a violation of Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act, which is mandatory in character. 6. In addition to such a material violation of the statutory provision, it is found that there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, which has not been reconciled by the prosecution. Secondly, it is noted that none of the independent witnesses has supported the prosecution case and they have been treated as hostile witnesses. So the evidence is of no avail to the prosecution in this particular case. 7. An appeal against the order of acquittal can succeed only when there are very substantial and compelling reasons for disturbing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as the acquittal of the accused of the charges framed against him bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Substantial and compelling reasons has neither been cited by the State nor any argument has been advanced in this regard. Substantial and compelling reasons has neither been cited by the State nor any argument has been advanced in this regard. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no reason for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in the aforesaid case. 8. Accordingly, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed