JUDGMENT 1. - The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.9.2006 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Cases, Ratangarh whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent for offences under Section 8/15 read with Section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.8.2005, a truck, bearing registration No. PB-IOUG-885 was going from Sujangarh to Ratangarh which was being driven by Gurtej Singh. Paramjeet Singh was sitting near Floating Frame him. The said truck was stopped and searched. In the truck, fifteen bags of doda post powder was recovered. The charges were framed. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted number of documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent vide judgment dated 12.9.2006. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective as fifteen bags of doda post were recovered from the possession of the accused-respondent..Therefore, the impugned judgment needs, to be interfered with. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the learned Judge has correctly concluded that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act' has been, violated. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to acquit the accused- respondent of the alleged offence. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment as well as examined the record. 6. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in case the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act are violated, it will lead to acquittal of the accused person. 7. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that there is not an iota of evidence produced by the prosecution that mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act was indeed followed. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that provisions of Section 42 of the Act were violated. This was a sufficient ground to acquit the accused-respondent. The learned Judge has given other cogent reasons for acquitting them. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment.This criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******