JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The determination of all these three appeals require close scrutiny pertaining to the applicability of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Narcotic Act") and the effect of non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Chapter V therein vis-a-vis the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation of various provisions, particularly those relating to procedure contained in the aforesaid chapter, has elaborately been dealt by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sudarshan Kumar and etc., 1989 Cri LJ 1412. 2- The learned Counsel for the parties submit that the aforesaid appeals are covered by the principles laid down in Sudarshan Kumar’s case (supra) consequent whereupon identical questions of law and fact have arisen in all these appeals. It is in this background that all the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. In order to closely scrutinise the legality of the impugned judgment brief reference to the facts of each appeal is necessitated to be detailed. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1983 and Criminal Appeal No 490 of 1988 are directed against the two separate judgments dated October 7, 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba whereby he convicted and sentenced both the accused on the facts of each case placed before him. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the morning of December 1, 1986, bus No. HPC-572 was proceeding from Chamba to Pathankot where in both the accused were passengers. The moment the said vehicle arrived and stopped at Tunuhatti barrier for routine checking both the accused alighted, turned back quickly and started running towards Chamba side thereby arousing suspicion of the police party which apprehended them separately. Two separate ruqas were accordingly forwarded to the Police Station for registration of criminal cases against each one of them. Then, after observing the codal formalities, sample charas for analysis in each case was taken out. The sample charas and the remaining one in both the cases were then duly sealed and specimen impression of the seal were secured. After completion of the investigation the accused stood prosecuted for the commission of the offence under section 20 of the Narcotic Act in. the court of Sessions at Chamba. The sample charas and the remaining one in both the cases were then duly sealed and specimen impression of the seal were secured. After completion of the investigation the accused stood prosecuted for the commission of the offence under section 20 of the Narcotic Act in. the court of Sessions at Chamba. The learned Sessions Judge on appraisal of the entire record held that the investigation conducted by the Head Constable was not illegal and that non-compliance of section 50 read with sections 41 to 43 of the Narcotic Act did not nullify the arrest and search of the accused nor it vitiated the trial. Rather illegality, if any, puts the court on guard to be cautious and circumspect in carefully examining the evidence regarding seizure. The learned Sessions Judge further held that during cross-examination not a single question has been put to any witness with regard to the provisions of the Narcotic Act nor it has been suggested that none of the accused person before search ever expressed his desire to be searched before a gazetted officer empowered thereunder. Further, at the time of search and seizure of the incriminating articles, independent witnesses were joined and no enmity of the prosecution witnesses with the accused stood established nor it .was the case of the accused that the charas in question was planted by the Investigating Officer. Rather, under the aforesaid circumstances it was for the accused to show that the material prejudice had been caused to him by not having followed the procedure provided under the Narcotic Act. In view of the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused was convicted and sentenced. 5. In Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1988, accused Bhag Chand was apprehended on November 16, 1985 at about 10-45 p. m at a place knwn as Balu on Sahu road adjacent to Ravi bridge located at a distance of about 1 Km. from Chamba town during Nakabandi by the police party headed by A. S. I. Lekh Ram (PW) under the supervision of Mr. K. L. Chopra, Dy. S. P., Chamba. The accused alongwith two other persons were coming from the opposite side and on being asked by the police, they turn ed back quickly and started running towards village Sarol thereby arousing suspicion of police party which apprehended him. He was carrying a cloth bag on his left shoulder. K. L. Chopra, Dy. S. P., Chamba. The accused alongwith two other persons were coming from the opposite side and on being asked by the police, they turn ed back quickly and started running towards village Sarol thereby arousing suspicion of police party which apprehended him. He was carrying a cloth bag on his left shoulder. On search 2 kg. 300 gms. of charas, wrapped in a polythene pack kept inside . the cloth bag, was recovered. A ruga accordingly was sent for registration of a criminal case under section 61(1) (14) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1913 as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The police after observing the codal formalities took out 10 gms. of sample charas for analysis. The sample charas and the remaining one were then duly sealed and specimen impression of the seal was secured. On November 17, 1985 the case property and sample parcel were deposited in Police Station, Chamba On completion of the Investigation and after obtaining the Chemical Examiners report, the challan was put up in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba who, finding the case to be exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, in turn, committed the same to the court of Sessions at Chamba. The learned Sessions Judge for similar reasons stated in Cr. Appeal No. 456 of 1988 convicted and sentenced the accused. 6. In all the aforesaid three appeals, the accused have separately been convicted for offence under the Narcotic Act and awarded the minimum sentence prescribed besides a direction to the accused to suffer further imprisonment in default of payment of fine. It may be stated here that the minimum sentence is rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine not less than Rs. 1.00.000. 7. The main stay of the criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the appellants in all the appeals is non-compliance of the mandatory pro visions of sub-section (1) of section 52 and section 57 of the Narcotic Act. It is pointed out that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the accused after their arrest were apprised about the ground of their arrest at any stage. It is pointed out that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the accused after their arrest were apprised about the ground of their arrest at any stage. Further it is hotly debated that as per section 57 the Investigating Officer after arresting the accused or seizing the case property never made full report to his immediate superior officer within 48 hours and the entire record in this behalf is silent. That the abovesaid provisions are mandatory in nature and their non-compliance by the public functionaries has prejudiced their defence. Reliance has been placed on the principles laid down in Sudershan Kumars case (supra). 8. The learned Assistant Advocate General has fairly and squarely conceded that both the abovesaid sections have not been complied with in all the appeals as it appears from the record and on that count alone he is unable to support the judgment, 9. In view of the above submissions we now propose to deal with each case on merits, 10. The facts giving rise to the filing of Criminal Appeals No. 456 of 1988 and 490 of 1988 have been narrated above. Both the accused were travelling in the same bus and both of them were apprehended resulting into their arrest and seizure of the case property by the same police party in similar circumstances on the same day and almost the same time. We have gone through the entire evidence. Neither the Investigation Officer arrest ing the accused i e., Head Constable Bhagirath (PW 11) nor Head Constable Duni Chand (PW 13) who arrested the accused and seized the case property respectively nor any other witness has categorically stated that after the arrest the said PWs had apprised the accused persons of the ground of their arrest. Head Constable Bhagirath (PW 11) and Head Constable Duni Chand (PW 13) have also not deposed that after arrest or seizure they bad made full report to their immediate superior officers within 48 hours. Even the memos prepared during the investigation do not throw light on the said two aspects. These are extremely valuable rights which legislature has conferred on the accused. The said rights have been incorporated in the Narcotic Act keeping in view the severity of the sentence. Even the memos prepared during the investigation do not throw light on the said two aspects. These are extremely valuable rights which legislature has conferred on the accused. The said rights have been incorporated in the Narcotic Act keeping in view the severity of the sentence. The rationale behind the said provisions is manifest inasmuch as firstly, when the accused is informed about the grounds of arrest at the earliest opportunity, the accused becomes aware of, at the very outset, what he has to meet in the long run and, secondly, compliance of section 57 brings into existence a document which can be used for the purpose of cross-examination in defence. The making of such a report within 48 hours will also bring to an end the possibility of improving the prosecution version after that time It is well settled that the onus to bring home the guilt of the accused is heavily laid upon the prosecution. Thus, in view of the mandatory provisions laid down in the Narcotic Act, the prosecution is under legal obligation to lead evidence to show that the said provisions have been complied with. Thus, from whatsoever angle the facts and circum stances of the abovesaid two appeals are judged, the prosecution must fail for want of compliance of the aforesaid mandatory provisions in view of the principles laid down in Sudarshan Kumars case {supra). The impugned judgment in both the appeals, as a sequel, are not sustainable in law and are set aside accordingly. The accused are ordered to be released forthwith. The incriminating articles be disposed of according to law. 11. We must repel on account of legal position enunciated by us above the reasons put forward by the learned Court below for recording the conviction of the accused in1 Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1988 for want of compliance with the mandatory provisions of sections 52 (1) and 57 of the Narcotic Act. Consequently, this appeal is also accepted and the impugned judgment set aside. Accused Bhag Chand is directed to be released forthwith. Charas which is the case property be disposed of according to law. Order accordingly.