JUDGMENT : S.V. Pinto, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (NDPS) Case No. 5/2012 on 31.01.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 20(b) of The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act” for short). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 On 07.05.2012, the complainant Manojsinh Natwarsinh Chowda was working as Police Inspector, Special Operation Group, Bhavnagar and he received secret information at about 12.15 hours that the accused who was residing in Block No. 439, 25 Varia Blot, Near Sanskar Vidyalaya at Akhlol Jakatnaka had narcotics substance in two rexine bags, one black and one coffee colour and after following the due procedure, the place was raided by the complainant and the other team members and 11.700 kgs of ganja worth Rs. 70,200/- was found from the residence of the accused. The complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 8 (c), 20(d) of the NDPS Act which came to be registered at Bhavnagar B Division Police Station II – C.R. No. 61 of 2012. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Court. 2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 7, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. A charge at Exh. 6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 7, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution examined 7 witnesses and has produced 28 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned filed the closing pursis at Exh. 60, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Vinod Gamara for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vinod Gamara for the respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, the appeal may be rejected. 6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 , this Court stated: "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. 7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same. 8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Manojsinh Natwarsinh Chavda at Exh. 9 and the witness is the complainant who has stated that after he received the information, he noted the same in the Secret Information Register and informed the Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar about the information. Two independent panch witnesses were called and the primary panchnama was drawn between 13.50 to 14.20 hours. The complainant along with others had gone to the house of the accused and the accused was informed about the procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the document produced at Exh. 10 was drawn, wherein, the signature of the accused and the panch witnesses were taken. The accused refused to be searched by any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and his consent was recorded in the document produced at Exh. 11. The accused was also informed about the procedure of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act and his signature was taken on the document produced at Exh. 12. The accused was asked to bring the two bags and he produced the two bags out of which one was blackish bluish colour and the other was coffee cream colour and on opening both the bags, green plants were found and on smelling it was found to be Cannabis. The accused did not have any license or permit for the possession of the narcotic substance and the FSL Officer as well as the witness with a wieghing scale was called by the documents produced at Exh. 13 and Exh. 14. The accused did not have any license or permit for the possession of the narcotic substance and the FSL Officer as well as the witness with a wieghing scale was called by the documents produced at Exh. 13 and Exh. 14. A mobile with two SIM cards was found in the possession of the accused which was seized and a railway ticket from Baroda to Bhavnagar and an election card was also found. On weighing the narcotic substance it was found to be 11.700 kgs and reserve sample of 50 grams was taken in a transparent plastic jar and the entire muddamaal was sealed and seized and the panchnama which is produced at Exh. 17 was drawn. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the information was received 9.30 am and till 12.15 pm, no report was sent to the Superior Officer. That no signature of the Superintendent of Police was taken that the information was received and no signature was made in any log book. The panch witnesses that were taken, were earlier panch witnesses in other police cases and were panch witnesses in many cases filed under the NDPS Act. That when he went for the raid, he was in civil clothes and the complaint was written at the spot but it is not mentioned in the complaint that the complaint was written at the spot. The complaint does not mention the time during which the complaint was written and the time when it ended and the document at Exh. 10 does not state the time when it was written. The document does not state that the accused was asked the question whether he wanted to be searched by any other Gazetted Officer and the reply of the accused is not mentioned and also it is not mentioned that the accused was asked in the Hindi language. The document at Exh. 11 does not state that the Hindi language was used and the document at Exh. 12 does not state the time when it was written. No signature of the accused was taken on Exh. 12 and there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was residing on rent in the premises. There were many houses surrounding the house of the accused and no statements of any neighbors have been recorded. 12 does not state the time when it was written. No signature of the accused was taken on Exh. 12 and there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was residing on rent in the premises. There were many houses surrounding the house of the accused and no statements of any neighbors have been recorded. In the seizure memo, there is no mention of any muddamaal and the slip that is affixed on the muddamaal do not have intact seals and it can be easily opened. The complainant has categorically stated that he did not go personally to file the complaint. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Hemandas Viasndas Jobanputra at Exh. 23 and the witness is the panch witness who has stated that he was called to the SOG Office on 07.05.2012 along with the other panch witness Hanifbhai Musani. They were told that they have to go for a raid and they were made to sit in a vehicle and the panchnama was drawn. The witness has identified his signature on the primary panchnama. That they had gone to Phulsar, 25 Varia Plot to a house and the panch witnesses were asked to stand outside and the police had gone in the house and had seized two bags and told them that it was ganja. There was a person in the house but the witness has stated that he could not recognize that person. The panch witnesses sat till the writing work was done and in his presence nothing was asked to the person who was in the house. The police had seized the two bags and their signatures were taken on the panchnama which is produced at Exh. 24. The witness does not know whether any other thing was seized from any person and as the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing further to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Gighabhai Govindbhai Sarvaiya at Exh. 26 and the witness was working as a Head Constable at the SOG Office, Bhavnagar. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he had gone along with the Superior Officer and others for the raid. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Gighabhai Govindbhai Sarvaiya at Exh. 26 and the witness was working as a Head Constable at the SOG Office, Bhavnagar. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he had gone along with the Superior Officer and others for the raid. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not know who had done the sealing of the muddamal and in his statement before the police, it is not mentioned that the accused was asked whether he wanted to be searched by any other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Vinodbhai Savaldas at Exh. 28 and the witness has stated that he was working at Navapura Road at the shop of Manubhai Gathiyawala and on 07.05.2012 in the afternoon, the SOG Police came in a Tata Sumo along with Police Constable - Sureshbhai and asked him to take his weighing scale and he had gone in the Tata Sumo to a room. There was one person present named Naveenbhai and grass like substance were lying and he was asked to weigh them. One bag weighed 5.800 kg and the other bag weighed 5.700 kg and 50 - 50 grams samples were taken from each bag. The witness has identified the accused before the learned Trial Court and has submitted and has produced the certificate at Exh. 16. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that the shop of Manubhai Gathiyawala is situated outside of the DSP Office and the SOG Office is just behind the shop. All the SOG staff members come to his shop and know him and Police Constable Sureshbhai knows him personally and as Sureshbhai called him, he came and sat in the vehicle. That he does not know whose house it was and there were 6 to 7 policemen in plain clothes at that place. In the document produced at Exh. 16, he has merely written the weight and all the other details were written by someone else. 8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Sureshbhai Karshanbhai Boriya at Exh. 29 and the witness was working as a Police Constable at the SOG Office and he had gone to call PW4 – Vinodbhai Savaldas to weigh the narcotic substance. 16, he has merely written the weight and all the other details were written by someone else. 8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Sureshbhai Karshanbhai Boriya at Exh. 29 and the witness was working as a Police Constable at the SOG Office and he had gone to call PW4 – Vinodbhai Savaldas to weigh the narcotic substance. The witness has stated that he went to the shop of Manubhai Gathiyawala and called Vinodbhai with his weighing scale and had taken him to the place of offence. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that Manubhai Gathiyawala's shop is near the SOG Office and there are many shops near the DSP Office and other persons with weighing scales would be available. That even at Akhlol Jakatnaka, many shops are situated and there too they would find persons with weighing scales. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Vijaykumar Chelshankar Joshi at Exh. 30 and the witness is the PSO who has registered the offence. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that he has registered the offence but he has not met the complainant and two to three constables had come with the accused, muddamaal and the complaint but he does not know their names. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 – Batukbhai Dayaljibhai Thakkar at Exh. 33 and the witness is the Investigating Officer and he has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused the witness has stated that all the documents and panchnama were nil and the arrest memo is the first document which would not have the Crime Register number mentioned but in the present case when he got the documents the Crime Register Number was already mentioned. That he has not seized any document to show that the accused was residing on rent in the disputed suit property and in the documents submitted by him, in all the mandatory and directory documents, the time is not mentioned. It is also not mentioned that the accused was made to understand in Hindi language and there was no seal on the slip of the sample. That in the document produced at Exh. 15 which is the FSL report no Police Station was mentioned. 9. It is also not mentioned that the accused was made to understand in Hindi language and there was no seal on the slip of the sample. That in the document produced at Exh. 15 which is the FSL report no Police Station was mentioned. 9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the main defence raised by the accused is non-compliance of Section 42 (1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Section 42 (1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act reads as under: 42. 15 which is the FSL report no Police Station was mentioned. 9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the main defence raised by the accused is non-compliance of Section 42 (1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Section 42 (1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act reads as under: 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.— (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset - (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: [Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 9.1 In light of the above, if the evidence is appreciated, the complainant – PW1 - Manojsinh Natwarsinh Chavda examined at Exh. 9 has, during the cross-examination, stated that he had received the secret information at 09.30 in the morning but in the document produced at Exh. 21 which is the information given to the Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar, he has stated that he had received the information on 07.05.2012 at 12.15 hours. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence on record that the information was actually received by the Superintendent of Police and it is not the say of the complainant that he had informed the Superintendent of Police on telephone or mobile phone about the secret information that he had received. Hence, there is a clear breach of Section 42 (1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act. 9.2 In light of the above, it would be fit to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2009 8 SCC 539 in Para 17, wherein it is observed as under: 17. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42 (1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows : (a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of section 42) from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1). (b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior. (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of 2001. 9.3 Moreover, if the evidence on record is appreciated, the complainant has stated that the panch witnesses that were called were panch witnesses in many cases and also were panch witnesses in many other NDPS cases. Hence, the independence of the panch witnesses is not proved. Moreover, PW4 - Vinodbhai Sawaldas who was called to weigh the Cannabis by PW5 - Sureshbhai Karsanbhai Boricha was working at the shop of Manubhai Gathiyawada and his shop was just behind the SOG Office and was known to the police. In the evidence, it has emerged that there were many other people with weighing scales who were available at the place where the raid had taken place but for reasons best known to the complainant, PW4 - Vinodbhai Sawaldas was called from near to the SOG Office. It has also emerged on record that the accused was arrested at 19.00 hours on 07.05.2012 and as per the document produced at Exh. 31, which is the extract of the Station Diary, the offence was registered at 21.00 hours as Bhavnagar D Division Police Station II – C.R. No. 61 of 2012 but in the arrest memo, the C.R. Number is mentioned and there is no explanation regarding this on record. In the mandatory documents produced at Exhs. 10, 11, 12 and 13, the time is not mentioned and it has also emerged on record that the accused could not understand the vernacular language but there is nothing on record to suggest that the mandatory procedure was explained to him in the language that was understood by him. There are many discrepancies that have come on record and even the seals that were affixed on the muddamaal were not properly affixed and it has emerged on record that the seals could be tampered with and they could be opened and closed in a manner that the samples could be tampered with. 10. There are many discrepancies that have come on record and even the seals that were affixed on the muddamaal were not properly affixed and it has emerged on record that the seals could be tampered with and they could be opened and closed in a manner that the samples could be tampered with. 10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra) and Karnail Singh (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhavnagar in Special (NDPS) Case No. 5/2012 on 31.01.2013, is hereby confirmed. 12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.