JUDGMENT : On 26-01-2002, at 10:30 p.m., SHO Narain Dutt Tiwari received information through an informer that two persons coming from Himachal were carrying charas with them for selling the same and will reach near UCO Bank adjacent to clock tower at 11:00 p.m. in the night. SHO passed this information on R.T. set to C.O. City I with a request to reach clock tower, Dehradun. SHO along with with his police team tried to procure public/independent witness, but to no avail. C.O. City also came at clock tower in the meanwhile. Accused persons were apprehended near Kumar Sweet House, at 11:00 p.m. They disclosed their names as Mangat Ram (present respondent) and Shyam Singh (co-accused). 3 kg. and 2 kg. charas, respectively, (in all 5 kg.) was allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Mangat Ram and accused Shyam Singh. Specimen sample was taken from said recovered contraband for sending the same to Forensic Science Laboratory. The contraband was sealed and recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared. Document regarding information memo was also got prepared and both the accused along with recovered contraband were brought to police station. Case was registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act), at 12:00 in the midnight. 2. Investigation of the case was conducted by S.O. D.R. Arya, who after completion of investigation, submitted separate charge-sheets against both the accused for their trial under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. PW1 Inspector Narain Dutt Tiwari, PW2 C.O. V. K. Singh, PW3 S.S.I. Ashok Kumar, PW4 S.I. Diwani Ram Arya (I.O.) and PW5 S.I. Anand Lal (I.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun, vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2003, acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act. Aggrieved against the same, present Government Appeal was filed by the State. 4. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun, vide judgment and order dated 10.03.2003, acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act. Aggrieved against the same, present Government Appeal was filed by the State. 4. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of connected Government Appeal filed by the State against acquittal of co-accused Shyam Singh, Shyam Singh died, and as such said Government Appeal was dismissed as infructuous by the Court on 6-9-2014. 5. PW1 Inspector Narain Dutt Tiwari, PW2 V. K. Singh, Circle Officer and PW3 S.S.I. Ashok Kumar supported the prosecution story. They are the witnesses of fact, who in their examination-in-chief supported the contents of recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1), a description of which has already been given by this Court in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. PW4 was the Investigating Officer of the case, who conducted investigation at some length. Earlier, part investigation was conducted by S.I. Anand Lal (PW5). In other words, the investigation was handed over to PW5, who conducted the same at some length and thereafter handed over the investigation to PW4, who finally submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent Mangat Ram. 6. Since there is no independent witness, therefore, it was incumbent upon the trial court and is incumbent upon this Court to have examined the evidence of the police witnesses with vehemence. Law is clear on the point. Not that the testimony of police witnesses is to be disbelieved, rather it has to be believed. The word of caution is that the testimony of the police witnesses has to be examined with due care and caution, as there is possibility on the part of police officials to have misused the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, to settle the score or wreck vengeance with someone. Therefore, the courts are required to examine the testimony of police witnesses with great circumspection. The trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent primarily because the provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The entire judgment of the trial court revolves around non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. 7. It will be worthwhile to mention the provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, herein-below: ' 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted. The entire judgment of the trial court revolves around non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. 7. It will be worthwhile to mention the provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, herein-below: ' 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted. - (1) When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 41, Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.' 8. It has come in the evidence that the police officials thought that the search of the accused will be made in presence of PW2, who was given information on R.T. set, but even then, nothing has been stated in the recovery memo regarding the same. Nothing has been stated in the recovery memo that the provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act were complied with. Nothing has been stated in the recovery memo that the provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act were complied with. Learned trial Court has referred to the rulings of Hon- ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of Haryana v. Vikram Singh, 2002 (1) ANJ 345 : ( AIR 2002 SC 731 ); Madan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 (2) Crimes 69 and Salim v. State of Kerala, 2002 (4) JRC 260 to come to an appropriate finding that Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was not complied with. It has not come in the evidence that the accused person has waived his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Apart from the above, the trial Court has also found certain material discrepancies in the statements of the police witnesses, including the difference in the weight of the specimen sample send to Forensic Science Laboratory. Learned trial court has also referred to the decision rendered by Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ayub v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 Cri LJ 1619 in this regard. This Court need not repeat those well-applied decisions to the facts of the case for the sake of brevity. 9. The trial court has appropriately discussed the evidence to come to a finding that the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the accused-respondent beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. This Court has also perused the evidence thus brought on record only to uphold the inference drawn by learned trial court. This Court has no reason to take a view contrary to what was taken by the court below. 10. While parting with the case, it will also be apt to reproduce the observations made by Hon- ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (1991) 1 SCC 166 : ( AIR 1990 SC 2134 ). Para 2 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereininbelow for ready reference: ' 2. Law is well settled. While caution is the watchword, in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived at; the provision does not inhibit (sic) any restriction or limitation. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.' 11. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.' 11. Government Appeal fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court below. Appeal dismissed.