JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5-5-1988, by which, the appellant has been found guilty of the offence u/s. 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to 10 years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further under go one year's R. I. 2. According to the prosecution case on 5-3-3987; appellant Suresh Lal was apprehended by Constable Suresh Chand selling charas near Buland Darwaja Dargah. He was brought to the Police Station Buland Darwaja and produced before the S.H.O. with a written report Ex. P5. After receiving the report, the S.H.O. arrested the accused and on search the S.H.O. found the charas in the possession of appellant. The charas was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P3. The recovered charas was sealed and later on sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the report of the F.S.L. is Ex. P. 8. The opinion is that the packet contained some dried solid brownish black solid substance and on chemical and microscopic examination the sample was found to be of charas. After completing the usual investigation the Police submitted challan against the appellant. The accused was charge-sheeted u/S. 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act by the Sessions Judge and after completing the trial he found guilty the appellant of the charge levelled against him and has been sentenced as mentioned above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Investigating Officer has not been examined. Suppose that the investigation was done by Suresh Chand Constable then he has no authority to act as an investigating Officer. The S.H.O. who is the I.O. in this case has not conducted any investigation as is clear from his statement. It was also argued that the accused was not asked by the I.O. whether he desires to be produced before any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The formalities which are needed at the time of seizure have not been complied with The independent witness of the seizure has been declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, it was also argued that according to seizure memo Ex. P3, the charas weighing 91/2 gram was sealed but, according to the F.S.L. report Ex. P8, the packet which was sent to F.S.L. for examination contained only 7 gram of charas. This difference also creates suspicion in the prosecution case. P3, the charas weighing 91/2 gram was sealed but, according to the F.S.L. report Ex. P8, the packet which was sent to F.S.L. for examination contained only 7 gram of charas. This difference also creates suspicion in the prosecution case. It was argued that Secs. 42, 50 and 56 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. All these provisions are mandatory provisions which provide some safeguard to the accused. If these provisions have not been followed and complied with then the entire case becomes doubtful and benefit of doubt be given to the accused. In support of their arguments they have relied on the cases of Chhotey Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1989 Cr. Law Report 1956 and Biram v. State 1988 RCC 556 . 4. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is no illegality in finding the accused guilty of the offence. He has been rightly found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no substance in this appeal. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and perused the entire record of this case. Constable Suresh Chand (PW3) was informed by some mukhbir that one person was selling charas near Buland Darwaja Dargah. He came to the spot and found the accused selling charas. He caught him, took him to the Police Station and produced before the S.H.O. Ram Kumar. He submitted a written report which is Ex. P5. On this report S.H.O. Ram Kumar registered the case, arrested the accused and seized the charas. The charas was sealed by the S.H.O. Ram Kumar S.H.O. (PW6) states that Suresh Chand produced the accused at the Police station along with the report Ex P5. He registered the case and after registering the case he forwarded the report to the Police Station Thana Gang. It means that he made no investigation in this case. Simply he received the report Ex. P5. arrested the accused, seized the charas and forwarded the report to the Police Station Ganj for further investigation and action. Thus, Ram Kumar S.H.O. is not the Investigating Officer. Suresh Chand Constable who is the informant and who submitted the written report Ex P5 before the S.H.O. Ram Kumar, cannot be an Investigating Officer. He being Constable has no authority to investigate the case. Thus, Ram Kumar S.H.O. is not the Investigating Officer. Suresh Chand Constable who is the informant and who submitted the written report Ex P5 before the S.H.O. Ram Kumar, cannot be an Investigating Officer. He being Constable has no authority to investigate the case. So who is the Investigating Officer in this case is to be seen. Another evidence is that of Man Singh who was Sub Inspector at the relevant time and his duty was at Thana Buland Darwaja. He is (PW8) and he has stated that during investigation the S.H.O. ordered him to record the statement of one Intjamuddin. According to the direction of the S.H.O. he recorded the statement of Intjamuddin. Except recording the statement he did not participate in the investigation of this case. There was no further proceedings which could show that he was an I.O. So Man Singh is also not an Investigating Officer. Ram Kumar has not investigated the case. Suresh Chand is not the I.O. nor he could investigate the matter and there is nothing on the record to show that who was the Investigating Officer and who has completed the investigation. In such an important matter where the punishment is harse one and offence regarding possession of charas which as an offence against the society should not be taken so lightly by the Police Department. By the negligency of the Police Officers such evil against the society are escaped and the Courts are unable to punish the offender. The person was caught at the spot. The charas was seized from his possession but on account of negligence, bad investigation and not following the mandatory provision of Act by the department of the Police such offenders are released by the Court. This is a shameful affair for the Police Department and it is no sense for the legislature to make stringent provision with regard to these offences. It is better before bringing such legislation the Government should try in the Police Department as to how the investigation of such case is made. So what I feel that in number of cases on account of negligence of the Investigating Officer, negligence of the Police Department, not properly investigating the cases and not following the Mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Act, the accused are getting acquit takes. It is only for the State to look into the matter and trained their Police Officers. 6. So what I feel that in number of cases on account of negligence of the Investigating Officer, negligence of the Police Department, not properly investigating the cases and not following the Mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Act, the accused are getting acquit takes. It is only for the State to look into the matter and trained their Police Officers. 6. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. All the arguments raised by the learned counsel have been dealt in these cases so whatever arguments advanced are fully covered by the decisions of these cases and I need not to repeat those principles again. In view of the decisions in the cases of Chotey Lal (supra) and Biram (supra), the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The mandatory provisions have not been followed by the Police Department and non-compliance of these mandatory provisions is fatal to the entire case. 7. As a result, the appeal is accepted. The appellant is not found guilty of the offence u/s. 8/20 of the N. D. P. S. Act and he is acquitted. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal accepted. *******