PALOK BASU, J. The success of this appeal is dependent more upon the follies of the prosecuting agency than any other as it is well nigh impossible to convict the appellant with the glaring procedural lapses from beginning to the end of the case. 2. Laxmi Narain accused has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 8/17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, the Act) and sentence of 10 years R. I. and a fine of rupees one lac imposed by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, dated 28-1-1988 in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1988. 3. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. It is said that P. W. 1, V. K. Nada and P. W. 2, Pankaj Gupta, both Inspectors in Customs Depart ment Lucknow with whom were four other persons, two of the Department and two of the public, having received an information through an informer, were deputed to search the thela kept by the appellant near about Prestigious Coaching School, Lucknow on 23-12- 1985 at 7 p. m. From the belt (PHENTA) of the appellant 11 small packets (PURIAS) were recovered which, according to the opinion of the Raiding Inspectors, contained heroine. The total number of 11 purias weighing 9. 500 grams valued at Rs. 950. A seizure memo was drawn which indicates the aforesaid recovery and has the signaturejof the appellant. It is said that the appellant had voluntarily made statement con fessing his guilt. The appellant consequently was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow who was remanded to jail custody. It is not known what happened to the recovered heroine. The record is absolutely silent. 4. A complaint appears to have been filed by Sri M. A. Hamid alleging himself to be Assistant Collector, Central Excise disclosing therein that he is one of the empowered officer to file such complaint. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow took cognizance of the complaint and draw committal proceedings whereafter by an order, dated 23-6-1986 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. The trial was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1986 and com menced before the learned Sessions Judge himself. After framing of the charge on 9-4-1987 the prosecution was permitted to produce evidence. During the trial only two witnesses have been examined and they are P. W. 1. 5. The trial was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1986 and com menced before the learned Sessions Judge himself. After framing of the charge on 9-4-1987 the prosecution was permitted to produce evidence. During the trial only two witnesses have been examined and they are P. W. 1. V. K. Nanda and P. W. 2, Pankaj Gupta. None of the four other persons namely Sri G. P. Bhagat, Sri A. K. Dixit (Both of the department) and Maina and Radhey belonging to the public have been examined. At this stage it appears that the alleged recovered packets eleven in number were got exhibited in the Court of the Sessions. Cross-examination of P. W. I was perhaps directed to challenge the very factum of the recovered articles being Narcotic Drug or a Psychotropic Substance. Inference to the relevant evidence will be made here inafter. On 25-5-1987 the prosecution moved an application which contains the following prayer : "therefore, it is humbly prayed that in the interest of justice and to the just decision of the case the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to send the exhibited Heroine as a whole for chemical analysis. The learned Sessions Judge passed the following order Called out. Present: Accused with counsel. State applied that the exhibited heroine be sent for chemical examina tion, as a whole. The witness summoned for today has also not turned up heard. Allowed : The five purias of heroene be sent for chemical examination and the report be obtained by the date fixed. The case shall not be adjourned on the date fixed on the plea of non availability of report Fix 7-7-1987 for further evidence. 6. Ultimately the report of the Chemical Analyst appears to have reached the Court of the Sessions Judge saying that five samples were in the form of Brown powder. Each answer test for the presence of diacetylmorphine and was covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This report is dated 23-6-1987 and has been marked Ext.-Ka 4. The accused appellant, however, objected even at the stage when the prosecution moved this application for getting the samples verified at that late stage and he again objected to the admissibility of the report. These applica tions were decided by the Sessions Judge by his order on the ordersheet, dated 11-8-1987. The accused appellant, however, objected even at the stage when the prosecution moved this application for getting the samples verified at that late stage and he again objected to the admissibility of the report. These applica tions were decided by the Sessions Judge by his order on the ordersheet, dated 11-8-1987. The operative portion of the order speaks thus : "it may be pointed out that evidence should be allowed to be taken if the trial is still continuing and the court thinks fit that the evidence is necessary for proper decision of the case and there have not been great laches on the part of the prosecution in producing a particular type of evidence. In these circumstances, I think there is no harm if the report of the Chemical Examiner is taken on record. How ever, the accused can move the court, if he so wishes, to name the witnesses whom he may like to further cross-examine. Fix. 11-8-8-1987 for further hearing. Sd. v Sessions Judge". 7. It may be pointed out that the accused had objected in his application that such order by the Judge would neither be covered by Section 311, Cr. P. C. nor can it be said that such a direction would not be fulfilling lacuna in the prosecution case. In this connection it may be mentioned that the statement of P. W. 1 was recorded on 4-5-1987 wherein specific questions were asked towards the end of the cross- examination, such as (translated into English ). Q. 1. If the accused had told you that the packets had sugar, what would you have done. A. I would have found it out after having its taste. Q. 2. If the accused would have told you that it contains synoid then what would you have done A. I would have done nothing. Q. 3. That should I understand that you have no personal knowledge of what this packet contained. A. Yes. 8. P. W. 2 was examined on 5-5-1987 and his cross-examination also indicated such a line as was adopted while cross-examining P. W. 1. This brings us to the allegations made in the complaint itself. Q. 3. That should I understand that you have no personal knowledge of what this packet contained. A. Yes. 8. P. W. 2 was examined on 5-5-1987 and his cross-examination also indicated such a line as was adopted while cross-examining P. W. 1. This brings us to the allegations made in the complaint itself. There is not a word written any where in the complaint that the complainant was satisfied what the appellant had committed any offence or even prima facie the complainant was satisfied about the recovered articles being covered within the mischief of the Act. Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant has read out the complaint in exten so and has shown to the Court that not only there is no mention of any satisfaction but there exists vital contradiction on the question of recovery as to whether it was actually made from over the thela or from the belt (Phenta) of the appellant. Paragraph 2 uses the words at the time of raid/search the accused was conducting the sales on the thela. During the search 9. 500 grams heroine approximately valued at Rs. 950 Psychotropic Substance were recovered. The raid was organised on the basis of information received from an informer. Para No. 3 says a search was led by Sri V. K. Nanda, Inspector, assisted by Sri G. P. Bhagat, A. K. Dixit and Sri P. Gupta, Inspector, Customs, Lucknow. Para 5 says that Maina son of Ram Lal, resident of Sidhauli, Barabanki and Radhey, son of Sri Mohan Lal, resident of Bans Mandi, Lucknow were called on the spot and then search was made. The recovery memo was prepared on the spot by Sri V. K. Nanda and was signed by the members of the party, the witnesses and the accused. Para 6 says that a memo was prepared after interrogation of appellant. Para 7 says that on 25-12-1985 the statement of the accused- appellant was taken down in jail by Sri V. K. Nanda. Para 8 says that the accused-appellant was taken into custody and was sent to jail but was enlarged on bail. Para 6 says that a memo was prepared after interrogation of appellant. Para 7 says that on 25-12-1985 the statement of the accused- appellant was taken down in jail by Sri V. K. Nanda. Para 8 says that the accused-appellant was taken into custody and was sent to jail but was enlarged on bail. Para 9 says that the accused being the owner of the pea-nuts thela, was a party to the recovery of the said Heroin Psychotropic Substance being sold at his thela and is liable for prosecution and conviction under the provisions of Section 29 read with Sections 8/18 and 8/32 of the Act. In Para 10 it is stated that the Union of India is filing complaint through a public servant who is Head of the local office of the complainant and remains occupied with multifarious duties and responsibilities entrusted to him and Para 11 of the complaint says that the com plainant is submitting the documents as per List a and purpose to examine the witnesses as per List b. 9. Sri G. K. Mehrotra learned counsel appearing for the Department as well as the complainant argued that no doubt It is true that the complainant has not noted specific satisfaction about the allegations being true before filing the complaint, yet it may be presumed in this case as the memos were being referred to in the complaint itself which indicate that the recovered articles were containing some such substances which were punishable under the Act. 10. It may be stated here specifically that in such cases very serious consequences flow from the filing of the complaint and even slight departure from the procedure and the law is likely to have disastrous effect on the person prosecuted. The Act, with its stringent provisions puts in serious danger the life and liberty of the ordinary citizens. Therefore, strict adherence to the proce dural law it these cases must be loudly emphasised. 11. Therefore, in the case it was the bounden duty of the complainant to have first obtained opinion of the Expert if he had reasons to think that information conveyed through the infornier had in fact resulted in the recovery of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance. 11. Therefore, in the case it was the bounden duty of the complainant to have first obtained opinion of the Expert if he had reasons to think that information conveyed through the infornier had in fact resulted in the recovery of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance. The cross-examination indicated above is more than enough to tell anybody that unless experts report had come there was no basis whatsoever for filing of the complaint because P. W. 1 was himself not sure what he had recovered from the appellant. The prosecution has not led oral and documentary evidence to indicate to the Court as to what had happened to the recovered packets and in whose custody, in what safe manner, it remained all through. This case thus appears to be a mockery of the procedure laid down under the Act which has been deliberately chosen. This Court cannot countenance such laches. The contradiction in the com plaint and non-recording of satisfaction in it indicates that the complainant did not apply his mind at all. 12. The serious infirmity in the procedure adopted after recovery of the alleged packets were made is apparent because the record is silent as to where the said punas were kept. Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the department failed to point out as to in whose custody the said purias remained after it was seized during the period between seizure and the filing of the complaint. It is strange that no G. D. entry, no police report and no evidence or material is licating what steps were taken after the arrest of the appellant put forward indicating and the seizure of the packets from him. In uie circumstances, the Court is only to infer that link evidence about the recovery of the articles upon the stage of coming to the Court has not been produced. 13. Now comes up the question of sending sample to the laboratory at Delhi for test through the machinery of the Court. This method is highly deplorable. The prosecution should not have chosen such course so as to embarrass such a high judicial dignatory as the Sessions Judge. 13. Now comes up the question of sending sample to the laboratory at Delhi for test through the machinery of the Court. This method is highly deplorable. The prosecution should not have chosen such course so as to embarrass such a high judicial dignatory as the Sessions Judge. Thus, during the course of arguments it was felt that summoning of the material exhibits and perusal by this Court in the presence of Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Department was absolutely necessary, in order to do justice. Consequently such an order was passed. Two envelops have been sent by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow to this Court under sealed cover. One was brown sealed cover which has been opened in the presence of Sri Anand Mohan and Sri Mehrotra by the Reader of the Court. From the said envelop a longer envelop folded into small size bearing within six packets (punas) have been found. There is, however, noting show as to whether the samples were taken in the presence of the appellant or his counsel. The Sessions Courts envelop does not iidicate as to whether the sealing was done in the presence of the Court Olficer or not. Existence of a rubber stamp and initial on the envelop does not satisfy this Court as to the correct procedure and method having been adopted at the time of despatch of the alleged samples for the examination by the Expert. 14. The other envelop which also was opened in presence of the learned counsel for the parties Sri Anand Mohan and Sri Mehrotra bears the original report of the Expert from Delhi, the residue of the material after examining the samples from out of it and the envelop containing the said two articles. This envelop as also the letter of Sessions Judge, dated 8-6-1987 do not contain any where the signature of the appellant or that of his advocate. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel this envelop contains the matter coming back from the Expert. This envelop as also the letter of Sessions Judge, dated 8-6-1987 do not contain any where the signature of the appellant or that of his advocate. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel this envelop contains the matter coming back from the Expert. As such, for the purposes of finding out whether at the time of sending the sample by the Sessions Judge adequate precautions in accordance with law were taken or not the same has to be deter mined only by referring to the notings, condition and details in the first envelop as mentioned above. (Both the envelops have again been sealed by the Court staff and are being returned and its disposal shall abide by the final decision at the foot of this judgment.) 15. In view of the examination of the envelop that allegedly contained the one which was prepared after 11 packets were recovered from the waist of the appellant, it is more than clear that at the stage of sending of the samples suitable information to him, steps according to law have neither been given nor taken. The sanctity of the experts report, therefore, is under suspicion. It may be noted that these observations are being made by this Court with a heavy heart. One does not know what would have been the outcome of this case had the experts opinion and the procedural law been obtained and follow ed so as to bring the culprit to book. It is known rather widely that such small person as the appellant are being chosen by the big smuggler to stealthily speared the disease of the drugging in the youth of this country. It is all the more tragic this appellant wiio may have been the real culprit has to be acquit ted to maintain the higher dignity of law. 16. Before coming to the end of this judgment a very emphatic argument of Sri Mehrotra has to be met. He said that since there was confessional statement of the appellant, therefore, all procedure heed not have been followed and the said statement alone would have been made the basis of conviction. It is ingenious but very dangerous to accept. 16. Before coming to the end of this judgment a very emphatic argument of Sri Mehrotra has to be met. He said that since there was confessional statement of the appellant, therefore, all procedure heed not have been followed and the said statement alone would have been made the basis of conviction. It is ingenious but very dangerous to accept. Section 54 of the Act says that in a trial under the Act it may be presumed, unless and until contrary is proved that the accused has committed an offence under Chapter 4 in respect of the drug or substance for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily. Very severe burden, therefore, is cast upon the accused once the possession of the accused is proved and then it is further proved that the substance is and was a mischievous substance under the Act. If scribbling by the accused is given the status of proving the nature and contents thereof, the entire State machinery is likely to be misused. Therefore, Sri Mehrotras argument must be rejected insofar as the said confession states that the recovered articles was one of the contraband articles. It must be proved by the prosecution by its own evidence and own sources. Once it is done the presumption under Section 54 in a given case may be attracted. Under these circumstances, this Court is not placing reliance upon the aforesaid document showing alleged confession which has been used by the District and Sessions Judge as one circumstance against the accused-appellant. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged recovered articles were drugs or substances coming with in the mischief of the Act and hence the benefit of it must be given to the accused. It is necessary to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. This appeal consequently succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are set aside. He is in jail. He shall be released forth with unless wanted in some other cases. The two packets shall be despatched by the Registry of this Court to the officers concerned for being destroyed in accordance with law after due information and in the presence of the officers of the Department. 18. He is in jail. He shall be released forth with unless wanted in some other cases. The two packets shall be despatched by the Registry of this Court to the officers concerned for being destroyed in accordance with law after due information and in the presence of the officers of the Department. 18. The court has pleasure in noting with satisfaction the labour and sincerety that Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant who was appointed as arnicas curiae in this case, has put in. Appeal allowed. .