JUDGMENT 1. - The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.03.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondent, Khinya Ram for offence under Section 18 NDPS Act ('the Act', for short). 2. Shortly the facts of the case are that on 18.8.1988, around 12.15 P.M. the Police Station, Sindhari, received a secret information from an informer that Khinya Ram is about to board a bus from Jodhpur for Sanchor. He is carrying a bag in which contraband drug is kept. Considering the seriousness of the information, the SHO, Sohan Singh, (P.W.7) along with other police officers left for the bus-stand at Sindhari, around 1:20 P.M. They noticed a person standing near the booking counter; when the person was surrounded by the police party, the accused tried to run away from the place. The person was intercepted and was asked to reveal his name. He informed the police party that he is known as Khinya Ram. When the person was searched, it was discovered that on his waist, he is carrying a plastic bag inside an old Pyjama. The plastic bag contained black coloured liquid. It was found to be a milk of opium (Afeem ka Doodh). A sample of 30g was taken out and was sealed; rest of the remaining opium was also sealed. Subsequently, the respondent accused was charged for offence under Section 18 of the Act. 3. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, and submitted nineteen documents. In turn, although the defence did not examine any witness, but it did submit four documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 24.03.1990, the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondent. Hence, this criminal appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. O.P.Singharia, the learned public prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Judge has over looked the fact that the opium milk was, indeed, recovered from the personal search of the accused respondent. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused respondent. 5. On the other hand, Mr. The learned Judge has over looked the fact that the opium milk was, indeed, recovered from the personal search of the accused respondent. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused respondent. 5. On the other hand, Mr. B.L.Dhaka, the learned counsel for the accused respondent, has strenuously argued that the learned Judge has critically analised the evidence of the prosecution; the learned Judge has rightly concluded that there are contradiction between the testimonies of the Shanker Singh, (P.W.4) and Sohan Singh, (P.W.7). Most importantly, the learned Judge has noticed the fact that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act was not followed in the present case. Hence, the learned Judge was justified in acquitting the accused respondent. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and examined the record, and perused the impugned judgment. 7. In catena of the case, Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this Court, have held that Section 50 of the Act is a mandatory provision. It protects the accused from needless search and prosecution, and from a draconian law like the NDPS Act. The Courts have also held that in case the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act were violated, the entire trial would stand vitiated. 8. In the present case, although Sohan Singh (P.W.7) claims that a notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to the accused respondent, although he claims that the option was given to the accused respondent, neither the copy of the notice was recovered from the accused respondent, nor is the fact of giving the option under Section 50 of the Act mentioned in the recovery memo, the arrest memo or in the FIR, or in the Roznamcha. Therefore, merely because Sohan Singh, (P.W.7) makes a statement, the same cannot be accepted as the gospel truth, unless and until the statement is corroborated by documentary evidence. For, it is a settle principle of law that while man may lie, documents do not. In the present case, since the notice under Section 50 of the Act was never recovered from the possession of the accused respondent, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that mandatory provision under Section 50 of the Act has been violated. 9. Thus, in the opinion of the Court the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused respondent. 9. Thus, in the opinion of the Court the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused respondent. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in judgment dated 24.03.1990. Hence, the criminal appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******