Mandhata Singh, J. – This government appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2002 passed in N.C.B. Case No.6 of 1998 by Sri Dharnidhar Jha, Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram by which learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 20(b) (i) read with Section 8 (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. Prosecution case initiated on fard-bayan of one Manohar Singh Baba, Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Varanasi, in brief, is that he (informant) received an information about selling of ‘Ganja’ by one Raju Prasad Sah (respondent no.2) and also concealing its huge quantity. He reported the matter to his higher officials and obtained an order regarding conducting of raid. Accordingly, he along with Binay Maharaj, Karnail Singh, Rama Raman Tripathi, K.P. Ojha and S. K. Tiwary came to Nasariganj on 9.12.1998 at about 9.00 A.M., here he met two persons namely Babudhan Prasad and Lal Babu Ram. Informant disclosed their identities and informed them about the information received by him and requested them to remain present at the time of search, which was accepted by the both. Informant along with officials accompanying him and witnesses came to the shop of Raju Prasad Sah where accused Gyani Prasad was found sitting. He (informant) disclosed his identity as well as of others accompanying him. He further stated about receiving of information about concealing of ‘Ganja’ in shop in huge quantity and his intention to search it. He further informed Gyani Prasad in writing that if he was so wishing, the search might be in presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, to which accused Gyani Prasad refused and allowed PW-1 and his companion to search the shop. On search, 3-5 kilograms of Ganja was recovered, which was seized. Samples were taken from seized ‘Ganja’ in two different envelopes, remaining recovered ‘Ganja’ was sealed separately in a piece of cloth, weighing machine with some weights recovered and seized also. 3. A memo was prepared, its copy was handed over to Gyani Prasad Sah, who was arrested and a confession was also made on his behalf to the effect that co-accused Raju Prasad Sah was owner of the shop and he was working as only salesman on payment of monthly salary. 4. Only two witnesses are examined in the case. They are PW-1 Manohar Singh Baba and Sushil Kumar Tiwari. 4. Only two witnesses are examined in the case. They are PW-1 Manohar Singh Baba and Sushil Kumar Tiwari. After scrutinizing the witnesses, trial is ended in acquittal of both the accused persons by passing the impugned judgment validity of which has been questioned through filing of this appeal. 5. Non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and non-examination of seizure witnesses in compliance of Section 51 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. along with seizure in absence of two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality have been made ground for acquittal of accused respondents. They are only to be scrutinized if legally can be taken for acquittal. 6. PW-1 was competent to search and seizure is not in dispute. Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act makes mandatory search in presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Not only this, it is bounded duty of the official conducting the search to make over to the accused that such right was available to him. 1996 SCC (Criminal) 1 is referred by the trial Court to strengthen its non-compliance, but some mistake is committed on this point that this provision is made for search of the person of the accused not the house or shop as has been done in the case. It is made clear that shop of accused persons was searched. So, according to the prosecution Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was not applicable. This matter was taken by the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh by a Constitutional Bench reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172 , in which in clear words their Lordships have observed that Section 50 is applicable in the case, when person of the accused is searched. This much is conceded by the senior counsel Mr. Bindhya Keshri Kumar. So, the opinion of the trial Court on this point is not acceptable. 7. Another point is non-examination of seizure list witnesses and their being independent and respectable inhabitant of the locality. Admittedly, both the seizure list witnesses are not examined in the case. This much is conceded by the senior counsel Mr. Bindhya Keshri Kumar. So, the opinion of the trial Court on this point is not acceptable. 7. Another point is non-examination of seizure list witnesses and their being independent and respectable inhabitant of the locality. Admittedly, both the seizure list witnesses are not examined in the case. On behalf of the appellant state, it is submitted that examination of seizure list witnesses under Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not necessary at all by referring sub-section-5 of Section 100 of the Cr. P. C. which runs as follows:– “The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it”……………………… Thus, it is clear that they can be examined if specially summoned by the Court, which has not been done in the case. They are not inhabitant of the locality and respectable has not come anywhere as they are not examined and prosecution witnesses namely PWs-1 and 2 are not cross-examined on this point rather it has appeared that raiding party when appeared Nasariganj, two persons present were identified and requested for their participation in the search. Reference can be made of a case reported in (2009) 2 SCC in which seizure list witnesses examined but did not support prosecution case rather turned hostile in that circumstance also seizure was accepted as seizure list was proved as in instance case. 8. Section- 51 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act provides applicability of Code of Criminal Procedure so far as not inconsistent with provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures. There is specific provision Section 42 in the N.D.P.S. Act for entry, search and seizure and arrest without warrant or authority by the officers among which PW-1 was also authorized while Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. concerns with such inspection of close place in compliance of execution of warrant which runs as follows: – “Persons in charge of closed place to allow search. – “Whenever any place liable to search of inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein”. Thus, it is clear that observation about non-compliance of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act is also not liabale to be sustained. 9. On the point of non-examination of seizure list witnesses making a ground for disbelieving such search and seizure. 2009(3) B.L.J. 164 (SC) is cited on behalf of the accused-respondent, but their Lordships in the reported case have mainly concerned with non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and in that continuation only non-examination of independent witnesses of search is observed. Non-compliance of provisions of Section 52(A) and 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents, but has not been discussed at all by the trial Court. So, it can be raised in the trial Court only while case is remanded for deciding the same afresh. 10. On the observation made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed and judgment of acquittal is set aside and case is remanded to the Court below for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law and complying the observation made by this Court along with the point raised in this Court by accused-respondents for applicability and compliance of Section 52(A) and 55 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.