ORDER : 1. Heard on admission as well as on I.A. No. 01/2020, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed. 2. Also heard finally. 3. The State has sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.10.2019 passed in Special Criminal (N.D.P.S.) Case No. 05/2017 by the court of Learned Special judge (NDPS Act) Sarguja Ambikapur (C.G.) whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents from the charges punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Dugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short the N.D.P.S. Act) in connection with Crime No. 222/2016, registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) by giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The brief facts, giving rise, to the instant appeal, are that on 06/12/2016, the Investigating Officer / Sub Inspector K.P. Gupta (PW-8) received a credible information by a informer against the respondents who were kept illegal contraband (Ganja) in her house at Village Bandana Yadavpara without any legal or valid license and selling the same. 5. Following the prescribed procedure of investigation the Investigating Officer (PW-8) prepared Rojnamcha Sanha No. 17 (Ex.P-32) and called two independent witnesses namely Moin Khan (PW-1) and Govind Soni (PW-3). Mukhbir Panchnama has been prepared (Ex.P-6) and forwarded the same to his superior officer i.e. SDO(P) Sitapur, and after due and necessary formalities the police officials alongwith independent witnesses proceeded to the spot. 6. After following the due procedure of investigation the respondents were served with a notice U/s 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act apprising their legal rights for being searched, the respondent answered and gave consent (Ex.P-4), (Ex.P-8) for search by police. 7. Upon the search, the respondent no. 1/Ganesh was found in his possession illicit contraband (Ganja) quantity of the contraband came to be 2.00 kgs., and respondent no. 2/ Mulayam Singh Yadav was found in his possession contraband came to be 2.400 kgs, sample packets were prepared for examination and sealed at the spot. Thereafter, the respondents served with a notice U/s 91 of Cr.P.C. for producing the legal valid license or documents in relation to the recovered Ganja, but the respondents have not been produced any documents. 2/ Mulayam Singh Yadav was found in his possession contraband came to be 2.400 kgs, sample packets were prepared for examination and sealed at the spot. Thereafter, the respondents served with a notice U/s 91 of Cr.P.C. for producing the legal valid license or documents in relation to the recovered Ganja, but the respondents have not been produced any documents. After due process of law a formal F.I.R. (Ex.P-39) came to be registered in Crime No. 222/2016 against the accused/respondents and the recovered contraband was deposited in a safe custody. Contraband has sent for F.S.L. test and F.S.L. report is positive i.e. (Ex. P/43). 8. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and produced 51 exhibited documents. After appreciating the evidence on record the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents and, therefore, acquitted them from the offence charged. 9. Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioner/State would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that prosecution had complied with all the mandatory as well as documentary provision like Section 42, 57, 50, 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the Court statement of Investigating Officer (PW8), where he had clearly stated Ganja was seized from possession of the accused/respondents which is further supported by the Sukhbir Panchnama (Ex.P/3). He further submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled principle laid down in various judgments of he Hon’ble Supreme Court that even though, ranch witnesses turned hostile can be sustained on the basis of official witness unless does not prove that the official witnesses have enmity against the accused persons. It is further submitted that learned Court below failed to appreciate that it is now well settled that even evidence of hostile witness also to the extent it corroborates the prosecution version can be relied upon [Khujji v. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627 ]. He further relied upon in the matter of Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. It is further submitted that learned Court below failed to appreciate that it is now well settled that even evidence of hostile witness also to the extent it corroborates the prosecution version can be relied upon [Khujji v. State of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627 ]. He further relied upon in the matter of Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. vs. State of M.P. in a decision as reported in (2007) 7 SCC 625 , the Apex Court has in paragraph 28 observed as under: An appeal against acquittal is also an appeal under the Code and an Appellate Court has every power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole before it. It is, no doubt, true that there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and that presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. But that is not the end of the matter. It is for the Appellate Court to keep in view the relevant principles of law, to re-appreciate and reweigh the evidence as a whole and to come to its own conclusion on such evidence inconsonance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that while considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances placed before this Court, the reasons given by the learned trial Court in its Order, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 12. Considering the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, for ready reference Section 52A of the NDPS Act are reproduced herein-below: “52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances: (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances of conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of: (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared. (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true. (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.” 13. This Court found that there is total non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act 1985. Samples have not been produced before the Magistrate and inventory have not been made before the Magistrate. Date of Incident is 16.12.2016 and Section 52-A of the NDPS Act inserted in the NDPS Act inserted in the year 2014. Therefore, there is non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 14. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. being totally devoid of merits the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.