JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(3) and (1) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Cr. Case No.15/88 under Section 17 and 18 of the NDPS Act. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the respondent Mala Ram was prosecuted by the Sessions Judge, Balotra for offence punishable under Section 17 and 18 of the NDPS Act but after trial, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondent from the charges levelled against hm merely on technical grounds, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 3. The learned counsel for the State submits that as there is no reason to disbelieve the fact of recovery by the police party from the accused, so also, the fact that 1.600 grams contraband opium milk and 750 grams opium was found in the possession of the accused, but the learned trial court acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him in spite of the fact that charges are proved. Therefore, the judgment impugned may be quashed and the respondent may be convicted for the offences committed by him under the NDPS Act. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the learned trial court gave the clear cut finding that Section 48 (2), Section 50(1) and Sections 52, 55 and 57 are mandatory and no compliance was made by the prosecution, therefore, in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court no person can be convicted if the mandatory provisions are not complied with by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that undisputedly the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act with regard to search and arrest of accused were not complied with, therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment dated 10.4.1990. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have perused the judgment impugned. In para no.15 of the judgment there is clear cut finding that prosecution has not complied with the mandatory provision of search, seizure and arrest, therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The following finding is given in the judgment of the learned trial court in paras nos. In para no.15 of the judgment there is clear cut finding that prosecution has not complied with the mandatory provision of search, seizure and arrest, therefore, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The following finding is given in the judgment of the learned trial court in paras nos. 15 and 16 which reads as under:- 15- mDr U;k; n'"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fd;s x;s fl)kUrksa ds ckjs esa dksbZ fookn ugha gSA le; le; ij ekud o mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fd;s x;s fl)kUrksa ds vuq:i ;g ekuk tk pqdk gS /kkjk 42 ( 2 ) /kkjk 50 ( 1 ) /kkjk 52] /kkjk 55] /kkjk 57 vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku vkKkid izd'fr ds gS budh ikyuk ugha fd;s tkus ls vfHk;kstu dk lkjk ekeyk /kkjk'kkgh gks tkrk gSA 16- mDr U;k; n'"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fd;s x;s fl)kUrksa ds vuq:i orZeku izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa vfHk;kstu dh tks lk{; ys[kc) djokbZ xbZ gS rFkk ftu izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr djok;k x;k gS muds voyksdu ds ;g izdV ugha gksrk gS fd ?kVuk ds laca/k esa dksbZ fyf[kr fjiksVZ mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks izsf"kr dh xbZ gksA vfHk;qDr dh ryk'kh fy;s tkus ds igys ;g ugha iwNk x;k fd og fdlh jktif=r vf/kdkjh ;k n.Mkuk;d ds le{k ryk'kh fn;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk j[krk gksA vfHk;kstu ds }kjk ,sls izys[k Hkh lk{; esa izLrqr dj izekf.kr ugha djok;s x;s gSa ftuls izdV gksrk gS fd mDr vkKkijd izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk dh xbZ gksA vuqla/kku drkZ }kjk izfrijh{k.k esa bl ckr dks ekuk x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr ls ;g ugha iwNk x;k Fkk fd og eftLV~sV vFkok jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds lkeus ryk'kh fn;s tkus dh vf/kdkfjrk j[krk gks vkSj ml dkj.k Hkh ykyflag MhokbZ ,l0ih0 lkFk jguk o budk jktif=r vf/kdkjh gksuk crk;k gSA esjh fouez jk; ds vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ;g dkj.k i;kZIr ugha gSA ?kVuk ds laca/k esa dksbZ foLr'r fjiksVZ Hkh ugha Hksth xbZ gSA vfHk;kstu ds lk{khx.k vtqZujke o nsokjke] iq:"kksre }kjk ;g crk;k x;k gS fd mUgsa /;ku ugha fd eqyfte ls mldh ryk'kh fy;s tkus ds igys mls muds vf/kdkj ls voxr djk fn;k x;k gksA tcfd vfHk0lk0 5 }kjk ,slk ugha djuk crk;k gSA izdj.k esa ekSrfcj xokgu Lora= ugha j[ks x;s gSaA mDr of.kZr fLFkfr ds vuq:i vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh lansg iw.kZ gks tkrh gS rFkk ;g ekuk tkrk gS fd vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid izko/kku /kkjk 42 o /kkjk 50 ( 1 ) o /kkjk 57 dh ikyuk ugha fd;s tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i vfHk;qDr dks lansg dk ykHk fn;k tkdj nks"keqDr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s mDr reke foospu ds vuq:i fcUnq la0 1 fofu'p; vfHk;kstu ds fo:) o vfHk;qDr ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA " 6. I have perused the finding and scanned the entire record. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondent Mala Ram from the alleged offences under Section 17 and 18 of the NDPS Act while observing that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In view of the above, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******