JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal leave to appeal and appeal has been filed under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 5.8.2011 passed by Special Judge (NDPS) Cases, Doongarpur in regular Criminal Case No.01/10 whereby the trial Curt acquitted the accused non-petitioner from the charges under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act. 2. As per facts of the case, upon receiving telephonic information by Amarpuri, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Sagwada, the police party went on the road Sagwada to Doongarpur and two independent witnesses Vijay Singh and Nanu were summoned and thereafter, they arrested the accused-non-petitioner and after giving notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, a search was made and in search one plastic bag containing 380 gram opium was recovered from half-pant of accused-non-petitioner. 3. As per prosecution story, samples were taken from the said contraband and after completing all formalities, the contraband was send for FSL and thereafter FIR No.146/2010 was registered against accused non-petitioner. 4. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act in the Court of Special 2 Judge, NDPS Cases, Doongarpur where trial took place. The trial Court after recording statement of thirteen witnesses from prosecution side, recorded statement of accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and some documents were exhibited. The trial Court after assessing entire evidence so recorded in the trial acquitted the accused-non-petitioner from the charges levelled against him vide judgment dated 05.08.2011. the said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that finding given by trial Court with regard to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act is totally unfounded because all the proceedings were undertaken by the Investigating Officer in accordance with the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, which has been proved also in the Court by leading cogent evidence but trial Court has not applied its mind properly and wrongly acquitted the accused-non-petitioner from the charges levelled against him. As per learned Public Prosecutor, 380 gram opium was recovered from the conscious possession of accused-non-petitioner and said commodity was sent to FSL for analysis, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution, the accused-non-petitioner should be convicted. 6. After considering the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor, I have perused the judgment impugned. 6. After considering the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor, I have perused the judgment impugned. The trial Court specifically gave finding that as per statement of prosecution witnesses, it has not been proved by the prosecution that the compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act was made at the time of search. Further, it is observed by the trial Court that there is complete good-bye to the mandatory provisions of 3 Section 57 of NDPS Act because there is major contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses, therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of investigation, the mandatory provisions were followed by the Investigating Officer. I have perused the finding given in para 18, 21 and 22 of the judgment. The trial Court specifically observed that all the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statement, who were present at the time of search and investigation was conducted. The prosecution has failed to prove whether contraband was deposited after investigation. There is also finding in para-22 of the judgment that prosecution has not proved even the fact that notice Ex.P/1 bears thumb impression of accused and there is no evidence on record that any notice was given to the accused for the purpose of search. 7. In view of above finding, which is based upon evidence, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the trial Court, more so, the prosecution has failed to prove before the Court that mandatory provisions with regard to search or investigation enumerated in the NDPS Act were followed. 8. In view of above discussions, this leave to appeal is hereby rejected.Leave to appeal dismissed. *******