JUDGMENT : B.N KARIA, J. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order of acquittal dated 27.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions & Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Banaskantha at Deesa in Special Case No. 77 of 2003, whereby, the present respondents-accused were acquitted of charges punishable under Sections 15, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under: 2.1 That on 14.04.2003, the complainant Shri M N Vaghela, Prohibition Inspector of Prohibition Striking Force of Ahmedabad along with other officers viz. Inspector Shri U R Thakore, A.S.I Shri Jasvantsinh, Arjanbhai, Dilipsinh Gambhirsinh and Baldevbhai Hirabhai, were on patrolling duty. At that time, Inspector Shri Thakore received an information to the effect that one Arvindbhai Bhikhabhai Modi, a resident of Gandhi Chowk of Deesa Town, who possessed the permit for keeping Pos-Doda for business purpose, is keeping more quantity of [“Poppy pods”] than prescribed in his license and selling the same. Shri Thakore was further informed that the said person Arvindbhai is keeping the illegal quantity of “Poppy pods” at his shop i.e. at Arvind Kirana Stores and at his godown situated in Lachhaji Chawl at Deesa Town. The complainant Shri Patel noted down the said information in one place paper, and thereafter, intimated about the same to the Commissioner of Police as well as Deputy Commissioner of Police of Ahmedabad Prohibition Division by phone and after obtaining permission from both the officials, he sent a forwarding letter to them, he also called two panchas and made them understand about the raid and drawn a preliminary panchnama. Thereafter, the complainant went to Arvind Kirana Stores, where the accused No. 1 was present. The complainant informed about the raid to the accused No. 1 and also informed about Superintendent Shri Patel who was Gazetted Officer and thereby he asked the accused, whether he want to be searched by the Executive Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. However, the accused showed his willingness to be searched through the complainant. Thereafter, after searching the shop of the accused 15 jute bags of “Poppy pods” were found which weighed as 328.500 kgs. These jute bags, thereafter, were emptied and weighed as on 1.200 kg. However, the accused showed his willingness to be searched through the complainant. Thereafter, after searching the shop of the accused 15 jute bags of “Poppy pods” were found which weighed as 328.500 kgs. These jute bags, thereafter, were emptied and weighed as on 1.200 kg. Thereafter, the said bags were again filled in by “Poppy pods” and was weighed as of 18 Kg. Thereafter, after calculating, it was found that though the accused was having license for keeping in possession less quantity “Poppy pods”, he was illegally keeping more quantity of “Poppy pods” and was selling the same. Thereafter, sample of 100 gm of “Poppy pods” from each jute bag was recovered in proper manner and after completing all the necessary procedure of drawing panchnama, obtaining signatures of the persons present, and sealing the sample was weighed at 1 kg, worth Rs. 46,575/-. Further, the complainant also obtained the xerox copy of the license for keeping “Poppy pods” from the accused and also recovered Stock Patrak, Bill-Book and last telephone bills. 2.2 Thereafter, the complainant went to the godown at the informed place i.e. at Lachhaji Chawl along with the accused No. 1. Thereafter, in presence of the accused, panchas and other officials recovered 73 jute bags of “Poppy pods” which was weighed as of 1624.16 Kg worth of Rs. 2,43,615/- However, for that quantity upon asking the accused, he could not produce any pass or permit for keeping the same. The accused informed that he kept this godown on rent from one Nanubhai Mohanlal for the purpose of business. Thereafter, a sample of “Poppy pods” was collected and after obtaining the signatures of the panchas and officials present, a seizure memo was prepared. During the investigation, it was also found that the accused No. 1 purchased “Poppy pods” from the accused No. 2. Thereafter, both the accused were arrested as they had, in collusion with each other, were found indulged in keeping and selling more quantity of “Poppy pods” than prescribed in the license and thereafter, they were charge sheeted, as they breached the conditions mentioned in the license. That, upon conducting raid at the provision store and at the godown, illegal quantity of “Poppy pods” was found. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint through the Superintendent Shri Patel. That, upon conducting raid at the provision store and at the godown, illegal quantity of “Poppy pods” was found. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint through the Superintendent Shri Patel. Shri Patel forwarded the said complaint to the Palanpur Prohibition Station, which was registered with the said Prohibition Station, being Prohibition I.C.R No. 431 of 2003. 2.3 Thereafter, the complainant, after completing all the necessary procedures submitted the charge sheet against both the present respondents-accused in the Court of learned Special Court, Sessions Court (Main Court), District: Banaskantha at Palanpur. The said Court transferred the said case to the learned Additional Sessions & Special Judge (Fast Track Court), Banaskantha at Deesa for final disposal on merits. Thereafter, as per Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, further papers after completing the investigation were attached with the said case papers. Thereafter, as per section 228(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court framed charges against both the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and produced 34 documentary evidences. Thereafter, the prosecution filed closing pursis vide Exh.269 4. At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and thereafter, the learned trial judge passed the impugned judgment and order, which has led to filing of the present appeal. 5. Heard Mr. Rutvij Oza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/ prosecution and Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the respondents-accused. 6. Mr. Rutvij Oza, learned APP in his arguments submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Banaskantha at Deesa in Special Case No. 77 of 2003 dated 27.01.2005 is illegal, erroneous, contrary to law and evidence on record of the case. The learned judge has committed a grave mistake that provisions of Section 42 was not observed by the Investigating Officer. As a matter of fact, the Raiding Officer Mr. Patel upon instructions of Mr. Thakore who had received the information, wrote a letter to the concerned authority, and thereafter, they proceeded further and hence, there is no violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. As a matter of fact, the Raiding Officer Mr. Patel upon instructions of Mr. Thakore who had received the information, wrote a letter to the concerned authority, and thereafter, they proceeded further and hence, there is no violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It is further argued that conclusion of the learned judge that the accused persons were having valid license for keeping in possession of “Poppy pods” was erroneous. That, in fact, Investigating Officer had recovered 310.500 kg “Poppy pods” from the Provision Store of the accused, and thereafter, they raided the godown of the accused from where they recovered 1624.100 kg “Poppy pods”. Though the accused had license for keeping “Poppy pods” up to 600 kg, they were having 2022.20 kg of “Poppy pods”, which was without any pass or permit. That, prosecution witness No. 1 (Exh.24) Dilipsinh Gambhirsinh Vaghela; prosecution witness No. 16 Umedsinh Ravji Thakore (Exh 259) have categorically supported the case of the prosecution stating that upon receiving information, and after following the procedure, they have raided the shop of the accused NO. 1, from where they recovered 15 jute bags of “Poppy pods”. Thereafter, on further interrogation, the accused informed about more muddamal “Poppy pods”. The accused No. 1 himself had unlocked the doors of the godown with the keys he had and from the said godown 73 jute bags of “Poppy pods” were recovered. It is clear from the evidence that godown was not of the accused No. 1 then how he had the keys of that unlocked door of the said godown. That, another witness Mr. Umedsinh Ravaji Thakore was discharging his duties in the department of Prohibition Striking Force-II at the time of the incident. He had said that when he was doing patrolling in the area and reached at the bus-stand of Deesa City, he received information that the accused No. 1 was having illegal quantity of “Poppy pods” at his shop and at his godown. Thereafter, he had passed certain instructions to his junior to note down about the same and after being noted down to forward it to the concerned authorities. He raided the shop of accused No. 1 and upon further interrogation of accused NO. 1, the accused admitted of more jute bags of “Poppy pods” which were lying at the godown situated at Lachhaji Chawl. He raided the shop of accused No. 1 and upon further interrogation of accused NO. 1, the accused admitted of more jute bags of “Poppy pods” which were lying at the godown situated at Lachhaji Chawl. They went at the said godown with accused No. 1 and the accused No. 1 with the keys which he possessed, had unlocked the door of the godown from where they had recovered 73 bags of “Poppy pods”. That, panchnama was drawn in presence of the panchas and officers, and after sealing and collecting the samples of “Poppy pods”, the same were sent to laboratory for analysis. Thereafter, on further interrogation, the accused No. 1 admitted of purchasing the said “Poppy pods” from accused No. 2. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as both the witnesses are responsible officers on duty. It is further argued that there is no inimical relationship between the accused and the witnesses for falsely implicating the accused in the offences. That, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and ultimately it was urged by him to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge (Fast Track) Court, Banaskantha at Deesa in Special Case NO. 77 of 2003 dated 27.01.2005 by allowing this appeal and thereby convicting the respondents-accused. 7. Per contra, Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the respondents-accused strongly opposed the arguments made by learned APP and supported the findings and reasons passed by the learned Judge in his judgment thereby acquitting the accused arguing that the Appellate Court cannot over rule or otherwise disturb the acquittal order unless there are “very substantial and compelling reasons”. He has further argued that “very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: “(i) The trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial Court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial Court's judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”; (iv) The entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial Court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.” 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the respondents that the learned trial judge has given proper consideration while giving findings and acquitting the accused. That, if two reasonable views are possible, the one that leads to acquittal while the other to conviction, the High Court must rule in favour of the accused. That, the accused or respondents are to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that the accused are innocent. The prosecution has failed to prove that muddamal “Poppy pods” allegedly seized by the Officer of the prosecution was in possession of the accused. That, owner of the godown has denied that it was rented to accused No. 1. That, not a single document in respect of the godown showing the ownership of the premises was produced by the prosecution. That, whatever the Assessment Statement was produced was in connection with property of Ambikanagar and the owner of the property himself has stated that it was not rented to accused No. 1. In the Assessment Statement, it is clearly stated that godown was made by the owner himself. That, no documents were found or seized from the godown raided by the prosecution showing the number of godown or ownership at the time of the raid. There is no evidence available with the prosecution, connecting the accused No. 1 in respect of muddamal found from the godown, key, opening the godown by the accused No. 1 or lock were not seized by the prosecution. No trustworthy evidence was produced by the prosecution, after completing the procedure of raiding in the godown, whether it was sealed or what about keys of the lock. While arresting the accused in the offence or watching his residence, no lock or keys were found by the Investigating Agency. Mere fact of godown which was shown by the accused No. 1 would not presume that he was in possession of the said godown, or in occupation. That, alleged 73 bags of “Poppy pods” and its ownership by accused No. 1 was never established nor proved by the prosecution. That, no statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act of accused No. 1 was recorded in respect of godown or muddamal. That, alleged 73 bags of “Poppy pods” and its ownership by accused No. 1 was never established nor proved by the prosecution. That, no statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act of accused No. 1 was recorded in respect of godown or muddamal. If it is stated in the complaint or the panchnama by accused No. 1 in respect of 73 bags of “Poppy pods” lying in the godown purchased by him from accused No. 2, it cannot be treated as a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, as there is no signature of accused No. 1 on it. No separate statement was recorded of accused No. 1 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and hence not produced by the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot connect the accused No. 2 in the offence. That, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and learned judge has committed no mistake in acquitting them. Hence, it was requested by him to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and order passed in Special Case No. 77 of 2003. 9. Before delving in the merits of the case, the law relating to reviewing the order of acquittal in appeal preferred, needs a reference. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 has observed and held as under: “56. In Bishan Singh v. State of Punjab Khanna J speaking for the Court provided the legal position: (SCC p.294 para 22) “22. It is well settled that the High Court in appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. It is well settled that the High Court in appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as: (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.” 57. In Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat the Court observed thus: (SCC p.232, para 6) “6. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere with the trial Court's conclusion unless there are compelling reasons to do so, inter alia, on account of manifest errors of law or of fact resulting into miscariage of justice.” 58. In K Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P the Court observed thus: (SCCp.360, para 9) “9…. It seems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. ‘A reasonable doubt’, it has been remarked, ‘does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other, it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons.” [Salmond, J in his charge to the jury in R.V Fantle 18] (Emphasis supplied). 11. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the learned advocates, record of the Court, let us examine case of the prosecution as per the charges levelled against both the accused, as to, whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. First of all, this Court would like to examine evidence of the prosecution against the accused No. 2. It appears from the prosecution witness viz., Ravindrapuri (Exh.243), Mr. M N Patel (Exh.244) and Mr. Mahendrasinh Vaghela (Exh.256) examined before the trial Court, they have said in their testimony that while inquiring from accused No. 1 in respect of contraband goods in the godown, it was replied by accused No. 1 as to how it was purchased and how it was brought, etc. But, he has not stated that these goods were purchased by him from accused No. 2. None of the witnesses either have stated in their deposition before the Court. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned, there is no evidence led by the prosecution that accused No. 1 had purchased the goods from accused No. 2. If we examine the documentary evidence, it appears that no statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act of accused No. 1 was recorded by the Investigating Officer in respect of muddamal lying in the godown. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated in their depositions before the Court that they have recorded the statement of accused No. 1 in respect of muddamal lying in the godown. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated in their depositions before the Court that they have recorded the statement of accused No. 1 in respect of muddamal lying in the godown. Of course, in this respect the same fact is disclosed in the complaint as well as in the panchnama that while raiding the godown, accused No. 1 had disclosed that stock of 73 bags of “Poppy pods” lying in the godown was purchased by him from accused No. 2. But, the complaint as well as the panchnama cannot be treated as the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. There is no signature in these documents and further it is disclosed by the prosecution in oral evidence that statement of the accused No. 1 was recorded, but, no such statement was produced on record by the prosecution. Therefore, it can be said from this oral as well as documentary evidence that no cogent or satisfactory evidence against accused No. 2 is produced by the prosecution to connect him with the crime. The complaint can be used by the prosecution just only to prove the contradictions or corroboration. The complainant himself has not stated in his complaint that on an inquiry from accused No. 1, he had disclosed that 73 bags of “Poppy pods” was supplied by accused No. 2. Mr. Patel has drawn the panchnama, but, he has also not disclosed in his oral testimony before the trial Court that accused No. 1 had purchased muddamal from accused No. 2, and therefore, whatever contents are made in the complaint as well as in the panchnama would not be admissible in evidence. However, it was within the powers of the Investigating Officer to record statement of accused No. 1 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. But, these powers were never exercised by him. Therefore, the only evidence against accused No. 1 is disclosure made in the complaint as well as panchnama in respect of supplying of the muddamal goods to accused No. 1. But, it would not be sufficient to connect accused No. 2, as no reliable or trustworthy evidence is produced on record by the prosecution. 12. If we examine evidence of the prosecution against accused No. 1, Mr. Patel has stated that the godown was hired by accused No. 1 and owned by Shri Nanalal Mohanlal Bharatiya. But, it would not be sufficient to connect accused No. 2, as no reliable or trustworthy evidence is produced on record by the prosecution. 12. If we examine evidence of the prosecution against accused No. 1, Mr. Patel has stated that the godown was hired by accused No. 1 and owned by Shri Nanalal Mohanlal Bharatiya. In this connection, certain documentary evidence are also produced by the prosecution i.e. Exh.236 Statement of Assessment. In this connection, prosecution has examined Shri Harishbhai Maganlal Chauhan (Exh.235) from Deesa Nagarpalika. The owner of the godown Nanalal Mohanlal was also examined vide Exh. 238 by the prosecution. He has clearly stated that no property in his name was situated in the “Lachhaji Chawl” and was rented to the accused No. 1. He was owning only one immovable property in Ambikanagar. The owner of the property himself was possessing a license for keeping the “Poppy pods”. He himself denies that the accused No. 1 was a tenant in his property. Now, if we examine the evidence of prosecution witness Harishbhai Maganlal Chauhan (Exh.235), he has produced a Statement of Assessment vide Exh.236 of the property situated in Ambikanagar. It transpires from the statement that the area of Ambikanagar was lying in the eastern side of the Court, while Lachhaji Chawl was on the southern side of the Court. It transpires from the Statement of Assessment (Exh.236) that there is no disclosure of any tenant in the property showing the name of accused No. 1. But, it appears that name of the owner is shown as the occupant of the property. As there was no disclosure in the Statement of Assessment (Exh.236) that the above said property was lying in Ambikanagar, and therefore, the said witness namely Harishbhai Maganbhai was also examined as a defence witness vide Exh.292 and he has again produced the said Statement of Assessment vide Exh.273, wherein, he has clarified that the above said property was located in Ambikanagar. Therefore, it can be safely said that the godown in the Lachhaji Chawl was not rented by the accused No. 1. Prosecution has failed to prove that the said godown was hired by accused No. 1 from the owner of the property namely Nanalal Mohanlal. Further, it transpires that Mr. Thakore, who is the Investigating Officer of the of fence has not recorded statement of the neighbours nearby to the raided premises. Prosecution has failed to prove that the said godown was hired by accused No. 1 from the owner of the property namely Nanalal Mohanlal. Further, it transpires that Mr. Thakore, who is the Investigating Officer of the of fence has not recorded statement of the neighbours nearby to the raided premises. Merely, because the accused NO. 1 has shown the godown, it should not necessarily mean that the godown was in his possession. Prosecution is bound to prove the conscious possession of accused No. 1 of this godown. Of course, it is case of the prosecution that the lock of the doors was opened by accused No. 1, but, no such lock or keys were seized by the prosecution during the investigation. After completing the procedure of raiding on the godown, there is no evidence whether the godown was locked or otherwise and what about keys of the lock? While arresting the accused in the offence, no lock or keys were found from his possession. Therefore, it cannot be believed that 73 bags of “Poppy pods” found from the godown were of the ownership of accused No. 1 or that he was in possession of the same which was purchased by him for selling. 13. It has also come on record that for searching of the godown around 3:00 p.m information was received by the witness of the prosecution and raiding procedure was started after sunset in presence of number of officials of the Investigating Agency. No search warrant was received for making search of the godown after sunset nor any reasons were forwarded by the prosecution under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. If the officer has any reason that if search warrant or authorized letter would be received and meanwhile there would be an opportunity for the accused to escape, then he can enter in the property or any vehicle after sunset or before sunset at any time by recording his reasons. Otherwise, such an officer can make a search between the sunrise and sunset. If any resistance is made from the opposite party, he can enter into the premises removing the obstructions by removing the door of the premises and would seize the contraband substance. As per the testimony of Mr. Patel, Mr. Thakore and Mr. Otherwise, such an officer can make a search between the sunrise and sunset. If any resistance is made from the opposite party, he can enter into the premises removing the obstructions by removing the door of the premises and would seize the contraband substance. As per the testimony of Mr. Patel, Mr. Thakore and Mr. Vaghela information was received at about 15:00 p.m, that in a shop situated at Rishala Chowk and Lachhaji Chali, stock of “Poppy pods” was kept by the accused No. 1. Hence, initially, the Investigating Agency searched the shop but, before searching the godown, no search warrant was received from the concerned authority. There is no dispute in respect of conducting search of the godown after sunset by the Raiding Officer. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution that there was an apprehension in the mind of the Raiding Officer that without getting the search warrant, search of the godown was necessary. No care was taken by the raiding party for arranging any bandobast at the godown after getting information at about 15:00 p.m Whatever resolution was passed by Mr. Patel would not fall within preview of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Further, no reasons were assigned for passing resolution at Exh.247 There is no evidence produced by the prosecution that the above said resolution was forwarded to the higher authorities. Prosecution witness Shri Dilipsinh Gambhirsinh Vaghela (Exh.24) has not supported case of the prosecution that such a resolution was passed before conducting search of the godown. Exh.247 is a copy of resolution. No original resolution was produced by the prosecution on record. Section 42 is mandatory provision to inform and forward the copy of the resolution within 72 hours to the higher authority. Exh. 254 is a forwarding letter to the higher authority. In fact, whatever information was received in respect of the contraband substance, it ought to have been forwarded to the higher authority under Section 42 of the Act. There is no cogent evidence given by the prosecution as to when and with whom the letter was forwarded to the higher authority. Mr. Patel has not clarified in his deposition that how this letter was forwarded to the higher authority. Mr. Patel has produced this letter during his examination-in-chief from his bag. Mr. Jashwantsinh is silent with respect to information noted by Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel has not clarified in his deposition that how this letter was forwarded to the higher authority. Mr. Patel has produced this letter during his examination-in-chief from his bag. Mr. Jashwantsinh is silent with respect to information noted by Mr. Patel. There is no evidence that the resolution passed for making search of the godown was forwarded to the higher authority with a messenger and the members of the Raiding Party were returned back at a time. As per the testimony of Mr. Vaghela (Exh.256), no case is made out by the prosecution that this information was forwarded by post or by fax. Mr. Umedsinh Thakore, prosecution witness exh.259 is silent about the information forwarded by Mr. Patel to the higher authority and he has no idea in this respect. He has not recorded statement of Mr. Patel or any high ranking and authorized officer. Thus, it can be said that the information put in writing was never seen by the Investigating Officer, nor he had inquired of forwarding of the resolution (Exh. 247) to the higher authority. He has not received a copy of the resolution from D.C.P, nor statement was recorded by him. Further, it transpires from the record that 15 bags of “Poppy pods” was found from the shop of accused No. 1 in his presence. Accused No. 1 is having a license of maintaining the stock of “Poppy pods” up to 600 grams. As per the condition of license he was authorized to sell “Poppy pods” from his shop only. As per the statement of accused (Exh.33) on 14.04.2003, he had a stock of “Poppy pods” weighing 313.500 Kgs and as per the prosecution case, when weight of 15 bags was made at the raiding place, it was found 310.500 kgs of “Poppy pods”. Therefore, it was found that excessive stock of “Poppy pods” was 3 kgs. As per the Bill Book (Exh.39), last weight was made on 29.3.2003 by a bill No. 972. If we examine the Rojmel (Exh.36), it transpires that by the same bill of even date, sell of “Poppy pods” was made by accused No. 1 and necessary entry was made in the statement of stock (Ech.33). Now, the question would be how there was a difference of 3 kgs. If we examine the Rojmel (Exh.36), it transpires that by the same bill of even date, sell of “Poppy pods” was made by accused No. 1 and necessary entry was made in the statement of stock (Ech.33). Now, the question would be how there was a difference of 3 kgs. If we scrutinize the panchnama drawn by the prosecution, weight of 15 bags was different and highest weight of the bag was of bag No. 13, having 29 kgs “Poppy pods”, while the lowest weight was found in bag Nos. 2 and 5, having 19.5 kgs each. Other bags were having different weight of “Poppy pods” with different measures. Out of these 15 bags, by removing a muddamal “Poppy pods” weight of vacant bag was found to be 1 kilo and 200 gms each, and thereafter, if we calculate the total weight of 15 bags, it would come to 18 kgs. There is no clear situation in the panchnama that the empty bags were having different weight. But, removing muddamal “Poppy pods” from one bag, the average weight of bag was calculated by the prosecution. Whatever the reasons are given by the learned judge showing difference in the weight of empty bag and measurement appear to be quite reasonable and cogent. All the 15. bags were not weighed without the muddamal “Poppy pods”, size of all the bags were different as well as weight of muddamal. However, only one bag was removed with the muddamal “Poppy pods” and it was weighter, and thereafter, average weight of 15 bags was calculated by prosecution, which can be said to be a negligency on the part of the prosecution. This was supported by prosecution witness Mr. Jashwantsinh also saying that one bag was removed with muddamal “Poppy pods” and all the bags were not weighed separately by removing the muddamal “Poppy pods”. This was also supported by Mr. Vaghela in his deposition at Exh.256 Further, the stock found in the Statement of Stock was less by 3 kgs. Further, whatever the samples were collected, it appears that it was 500gm plus 500 gm “Poppy pods” for analysis in each jars. It also appears that in one jar, there was a 400 gm sample of “Poppy pods” and in another jar there was 420 gm of sample “Poppy pods”. Further, whatever the samples were collected, it appears that it was 500gm plus 500 gm “Poppy pods” for analysis in each jars. It also appears that in one jar, there was a 400 gm sample of “Poppy pods” and in another jar there was 420 gm of sample “Poppy pods”. No weight of 29 kg bag or 19.5 kg bag was carried out by the Raiding Officer at the relevant point of time. Therefore, whatever the difference was found is quite possible, as the bags were of different weights and measurement. It transpires from the record that both the prosecution, panch witnesses Exh. 26 and 222 have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. They have clearly stated that in a prepared panchnama their signature was taken by the police. Further, as per the allegations made by the defense both the panchas were Police Officers and they were frequently selected as panchas in a police case. In such type of a serious case, in a normal course independent panchas should be selected by the prosecution. But, it is impressed that selected panchas were invited by the Raiding Officer from the bus-stand area. It has come on record that both the panchas were not staying nearby the bus-stand area. One pancha Shri Jayantilal Thakkar was staying at Deesa and another pancha Shri Rameshkumar Kaluji was also staying at Deesa just opposite to old police lines. Mr. B J Patel, Exh.279 has also admitted that pancha Jayantilal S Thakkar was also selected as a panch witness in C.R No.-I-232 of 1999 of Deesa Police Station. It also appears from the record that this panch witness was also selected in different cases in different offences. On the same post Shri Rameshkumar Kalubhai was also selected as a panchwitness in C.R No. I-67 of 1993. Therefore, from the record and documents produced on the record, it can be said safely that both the panch witnesses were invited by the police at different time. Prosecution witness Manaji Dhudaji (Exh. 237) has stated that muddamal bags were transported in his private vehicle to Palanpur, but, he has not stated that any bags were transported to godown. This witness was never declared hostile by the prosecution. Prosecution witness Jashwantsinh (Exh.25) is silent in connection with the bags of “Poppy pods”, from where they were filled up etc., While prosecution witness Ravindra Puri (Exh. This witness was never declared hostile by the prosecution. Prosecution witness Jashwantsinh (Exh.25) is silent in connection with the bags of “Poppy pods”, from where they were filled up etc., While prosecution witness Ravindra Puri (Exh. 243) says that in a Government Vehicle all the muddamal was transported to Palanpur. Initially, 15 bags were shifted to godown from the shop in a Government vehicle, and thereafter, surplus muddamal was transported in a private vehicle from godown. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are not supporting the say of prosecution witness Ravindra Puri. Prosecution is unable to prove that after seizing the muddamal, how it was transported from Deesa to Palanpur. While acquitting the accused from the charges of the offence, it cannot be said that any illegality or any perversity is committed by the learned trial judge. The recovery of muddamal “Poppy pods” is not established since witnesses of the seizure panchnama have turned hostile. Thus, in the light of the above, we find no compelling and substantive reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial judge. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the order of acquittal dated 27.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions & Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Banaskantha at Deesa in Special Case No. 77 of 2003, whereby, the present respondents-accused were acquitted of charges punishable under Sections 15, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, stands confirmed. The present appeal preferred by the appellant-State against acquittal of the accused-respondents is hereby dismissed. 15. R & P, be sent back to the Court below.