Judgment :- Appellant stands convicted of the offence under S.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (called "the Act" hereinafter), on a charge that he was found in possession of 5 grams of brown sugar (diacetyl morphine) at or about 6 p.m. on 17-9-1988 at Chakkumkadavu by P.W.1, Head Constable. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and to a fine of Rs.1 lakh, with a default sentence of two years. The court below relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2,5,6 & 7 to find the charge. 2. P.W.1 would say that he found the appellant under suspicious circumstances, that he accosted him, that he searched his person, and that he recovered 5 gms of brown sugar under Ext.P1. He took one gram from this, divided it into two parts and produced the balance before court as MO1. P.W.2 another Head Constable, speaks on the same lines. According to him, one gram of brown sugar was divided into two parts as samples. P. W.6, a third Head Constable, states that he conducted the investigation, while P. W.7 Sub Inspector states that he "verified" the investigation. According to P.W.8, a clerk of the Magistrate's Court, each of the sample bottles contained one gram of brown sugar (Ext.P10 certificate). Appellant denied the charge. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the conviction is vitiated for the reason that the mandatory provisions of Ss.50,52,53,55 & 57 of the Act, were violated. Elaborating the contention, he submitted that the investigation was made by an officer, lower in rank than the officer named inS.53, that the samples were not sealed, and that the other safeguards in the Act were breached. He submitted further, that the evidence is unreliable and that a conviction cannot be based on such. 4. The plain language of Ss.50, 52, 53, 55, 56 & 57 of the Act, leave no doubt, that these are mandatory provisions. But, violation of a mandatory provision per-se, will not vitiate the conviction, unless prejudice thereby to the accused is shown. But, a mandatory provision is not meant to be violated by those, who are expected to adhere to the mandate. 5. Whether prejudice has resulted to the accused has to be ascertained from the circumstances of each case. But, violation of a mandatory provision per-se, will not vitiate the conviction, unless prejudice thereby to the accused is shown. But, a mandatory provision is not meant to be violated by those, who are expected to adhere to the mandate. 5. Whether prejudice has resulted to the accused has to be ascertained from the circumstances of each case. If basic safeguards designed to ensure the authenticity of the material, upon which a conviction is based, are violated that will be prejudice, in law. 6. The existence of contemporaneous records, the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate during search, prompt sealing of samples and expeditious reports to superior officers are some of the safeguards postulated by the legislature, to ensure the veracity of the evidence, upon which conviction is sought. In cases of this nature, search and seizure go a long way, in establishing the charge. The offence could be visited with imprisonment for a period of 20 years, which could be the best years of life of a person. He cannot be deprived of the cherished right of liberty, unless there are valid reasons therefor. A conviction can be entered only on unimpeachable evidence. Elaborate safeguards are made in the Act to insure this. S.50 of the Act requires a person to be taken to a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desires. S.53 incorporates another safeguard, to ensure that investigation is made only by a responsible official, who could be trusted with functions, which may have far-reaching consequences. S.55, likewise, is another important safeguard, to ensure the identity of the article seized. Likewise, expeditious report of arrest and seizure to a superior officer, contemplated by S.57 is another safeguard to vouch for the correctness of the allegations upon which a charge is rested. 7. There could be no doubt that the offences sought to be punished under the Act, make a serious impact on the quality of life in a society. Narcotics and psychotropic substances, condemn a person to a worthless life and a slow death. Trade in narcotics has attained a pride of place, even in international trade. Statistics available regarding search and seizure reveal only the tip of the iceberg. In 1987 in Bahamas alone 25000 Ibs of Cocaine and 147 Tonnes of Marijuana were intercepted, enroute to the United States. In Bombay alone, one-lakh users of brown sugar are estimated. Trade in narcotics has attained a pride of place, even in international trade. Statistics available regarding search and seizure reveal only the tip of the iceberg. In 1987 in Bahamas alone 25000 Ibs of Cocaine and 147 Tonnes of Marijuana were intercepted, enroute to the United States. In Bombay alone, one-lakh users of brown sugar are estimated. "News from Narcotic Control Bureau" (July - September 1991) shows that in nine months 41,165 Kgs. of cannabis, 1800 kgs. of SWA Heroin and other drugs were seized in India. The social costs, economic costs and human costs of drug trade are-enormous. Depersonalization, break down of families and physical ailments including withdrawal symptoms represent, but a fraction of human costs. Diversion of money to criminals, corruption and human right violations are other consequences. Case studies by LEWIS COLLS "Never too young to the" (Pantheon books) reveal a human tragedy of rare dimensions. Sometimes innocent victims are pushed to crime. The Australian 'Customs Bulletin' reports a case where a 16-year-old girl taking a flight from Hongkong to Sydney, was accosted in a ladies toilet by a man, and forced to carry heroin to Australia, at Gun point. Children are drawn into the vortex of narcotics trade, as they could be used as unsuspected carriers. Instances are known where children earn between 200 to 300 dollars a day by trafficking in narcotics. Drugs in common use contain many substances with multiple effects and many of the drugs exert psychotropic, hypnotic, antiemetic and anticonvulsant effects. Such drugs depress intraocular pressure and affect cardiovascular, respiratory and reproductive systems. Hedonic properties of these drugs are well known. They precipitate panic reaction, depersonalisation, schizophrenia and confusional psychosis. Cerebral atrophy, ultra structural abnormality and electrocence phalography, amutivational syndrome etc. are also induced by drugs in common use like Fort win, Mandrex, Cod in, The bain. Methadin, Propexfin L.S.D., Pethadin, Brown Sugar, Love boat (PCP), Cocaine and so on. 8. Strong combative measures have been adopted in many countries. The United States for instance has chase planes equipped with infra red sensors and interceptors with forward looking infra red systems (FLIR). A multi disciplinary system is necessary to contain the evil. Punitive law has its role, too. It must be effective and enforced with a will. While the law must be enforced effectively, it must also be ensured that there is no abuse. Every safeguard against abuse, must receive meticulous adherence. A multi disciplinary system is necessary to contain the evil. Punitive law has its role, too. It must be effective and enforced with a will. While the law must be enforced effectively, it must also be ensured that there is no abuse. Every safeguard against abuse, must receive meticulous adherence. 9. The gravity of the offence will be no justification for mitigating the rigorous standards of proof prescribed by law. Prosecution must be held to the rigours and discipline, that the law envisions, for, no man's liberty can be imperilled by the handiwork of careless investigators, who throw the inbuilt safeguards of law to, four winds. 10. The evidence in this case, shows that it is too transparent to stand scrutiny. PWs.1, 2 & 6 who made the search and seizure and investigated into the case, are officers below the rank of a Station House Officer, not competent to investigate into such offences. The authenticity or degree of authenticity the statute looks for, is lacking in the evidence. There are no seals affixed to the samples, to establish or vouch for their identity. The samples and MO1, do not bear the signature of the accused or of P.Ws.1 & 2. It was sent to the court only four days after the alleged seizure (Ext.P5). Even more strange is the circumstance, that the half gram sample in each bottle (P.W.2) turned out to be one gram each, as seen from Ext.P10 (P.W.8). The cumulative effect of all these circumstances, puts the prosecution in a low profile. This is a case to which the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram (AIR 1980 SC 1314) squarely applies. The apex court held that when a sample changes hands many times, and when there is no satisfactory explanation for the happenings in between, a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of his liberty on the basis of such sketchy evidence. I for one, would think that it is the height of hazard, to sustain the conviction in a case investigated by officers not competent to investigate, where the samples bear no seals, where delay that brook no justification exists, and where the samples said to be taken, very substantially with the samples analysed. It will be a travesty of justice to deprive the appellant of ten years of his life, on such shabby evidence. It will be a travesty of justice to deprive the appellant of ten years of his life, on such shabby evidence. Suspicion, or indignation is not proof according to law. The long way between "may" and "must", is not covered by legal evidence. The conviction and sentence cannot therefore be sustained. 1L this is one of those cases, where the mindless machinations of the minor minions of the Department, leave a hole large enough, for the escape of one, who in all probability, has committed a serious offence. The enforcing authority cannot rest content with a law on the statute book. The will to enforce it meaningfully is needed. The investigating agency of the State could not be unaware of a few sections, which call for adherence. If it permits its subordinate officers to violate provisions of law with impunity, making crime escape facile, then it is a poor reflection on those who are in charge of law enforcement. It is hoped that the State Government will issue appropriate directions regarding the procedure to be followed in the investigation of such cases. Training courses/ refresher courses to update the knowledge of investigating officers in special laws is desirable. The great responsibility to root out an evil, that denigrates a good section of mankind, cannot be reduced to a farcical apology. The State should also take appropriate action against those, who warily or unwarily, violate mandatory provisions of law engineering crime escape. Conviction and sentence are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant will be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any other offence.