JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.1.2006 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.64 of 2004. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 6.11.2003 Subedar Laxmanbhai Vashrambhai Parmar was discharging his duty in chhota chakkar of Sabarmati Central Jail, at that time, one prisoner Nazir Vora informed him that the contraband article is there and requested to investigate. It is alleged that barrack was raided and during the raid, they went in 3/3 kholi and respondents were searched; the jailor was contacted by walky-talky message; the panchnama was made; the plastic bag was containing black coloured article; the quantity was very less; the said article was sent to FSL. It is alleged that the report of the FSL shows that it was brown sugar. Accordingly, the complaint came to be registered against the accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that as both the respondents accused were inmates as under trial prisoners in Sabarmati Central Jail and were kept in kholi No.3/3 and on 6.11.2003 in the early morning itself, it was noticed that both the accused are under the influence of intoxication, due to which, on having personal search and kholi No.3/3, small pill of heroin was recovered and both the accused were caught redhanded and the same has also been deposed by the persons in whose favour search and seizure was made, though learned trial Court has wrongly not believed their evidence and given benefit of doubt as if mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (“the Act” for short) are violated. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Khambholja, learned advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Khambholja further submitted that though raiding party alleged to have recovered small pill of heroin but there appears no uniformity amongst the members of the raiding party as to whether the same was recovered from pant which was found in hanging condition over the ceiling of the said barrack or from respondent No.2 from his inner pocket. He further argued that evidence of all the members who were accompanied during the course of raid are not uniform as regards to recovery of the said pill and even if the story as regards to recovery from pant which was wore by respondent Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Sheikh and recovery during the course of personal search, then raiding party has violated the provisions of section 50 of the Act as while carrying out personal search, he ought to have given option as to search to be carried out in the presence of gazetted officer or Magistrate. He further argued that though search is the result of secret information received by the raiding party and, therefore, the said secrete information was required to be reduced in writing, which was also required to be forwarded to the superior official as provided under the Act. Not only that but raiding party was also duty bound to follow the mandatory provisions as contained in section 42 of the Act which have been violated. He, therefore, submitted that learned trial Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt which calls for no interference by this Court. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Khambholja, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. PW 4 – Laxmanbhai Parmar has deposed that on 6.11.2003 while he was on duty in Sabarmati Central Jail as Subedar, it was his duty to supervise inmates and to keep in order the barracks. The witness deposed that on 6.11.2003 one Nazir Vora who was under trial prisoner in the said jail came to him and informed that some of inmates are consuming intoxicated substance. The witness deposed that in the result, he decided to search and while he was searching kholi No.3/3, he found pill from one hanging pant and that was recovered and the said pill ultimately was found to be heroin. The witness further deposed that while carrying out search, nobody claim ownership of the said pant in the said kholi. The witness deposed that as to how many persons were staying in the said kholi, he cannot say, but he came to know that pant was belonging to Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Shaikh. 8.1 PW 7 – Ishwarbhai Devabhai Parmar has deposed that on 6.11.2003, he was serving as Sepoi in Sabarmati Central Jail. The witness deposed that on 6.11.2003 at about 7.30 hours during the course of search of kholi No.3/3, personal search of Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Sheikh was carried out in his presence and from the inner pocket of his pant, one pill was found. PW 10 – Jashubhai Dabhi was serving as Jailor, Group-II at Sabarmati Central Jail. The witness deposed that on 6.11.2003 at about 7.30 hours during the course of search of kholi No.3/3, personal search of Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Sheikh was carried out in his presence and from the inner pocket of his pant, one pill was found. PW 10 – Jashubhai Dabhi was serving as Jailor, Group-II at Sabarmati Central Jail. The witness deposed that on 6.11.2003 at about 7.30 hours in the presence of Laxmanbhai Parmar and Ishwarbhai, personal search of Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Sheikh and Rajkumar @ Raju Chhabildas Bhavarlal Jain was carried out and during the course of personal search of Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Sheikh, from his brown colour pant from inner pocket, a packet of pill of heroin was found and it was searched in his presence. 8.2 In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence on record, it appears that there is no uniformity so far as search as regards to pill whether it was found from the person of Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Sheikh who wore pant at the relevant time or pant which was hanging unclaimed in kholi No.3/3 of Sabarmati Central Jail. In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has rightly not believed whether the said seized article can be linked with Ajaj Mahmed Bachubhai Sheikh or not. 8.3 Even otherwise also, on going through the entire procedure, neither the prosecuting agency has complied with the mandatory provisions as contained in sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Act and for want of due compliance of the mandatory provisions of sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Act also, no conviction can be recorded and in this view of the matter, conviction cannot be recorded against the accused. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.