Mr. R. L. Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgmentorder on sentence of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by whichhe convicted the appellant under Sections 20 (ii) and 21 Narcotic Drugs andpsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (tor short NDPS Act) for being found inpossession of 480 grams of charas and 6 grams of heroin and sentenced herto undergo Rigorous imprisonment for ten years on each count and also topay a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RIfor six months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were made torun concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution as per the rukka Ex. PW4/a is thaton 20-7-87 at about 4. 15 p. m SI Shanker Singh of PS Vasant Vihar alongwith constable Attar Singh was present on patrol duty in the area of Vasantvihar. While he was near Munirka Marg, another police party comprisingof few more constables met them. In the meanwhile he received secretinformation that one Mst. Chameli resident of a Jhuggi of Kusumpurpahari, New Delhi who was carrying on the illegal trade in smack andcharas, would be coming from the side of eastern road through the park ofmullirka Marg and that she had charas in her possession. Thus he constituted a raiding party comprising of himself and the police officials and onepublic witness Sunil Sethi. Lady Head Constable Keshwanti was also joinedin the raiding party who had reached the spot on receiving information. They picketed a Nakabandl near the T point of Munirka Marg. Atabout 5. 30 p. m. , the appellant who was known earlier to SI Shanker Singhreached there. She was seen carrying a white coloured cloth bag in herright hand. The SI told her about the secret information and gave her anoption that she could be searched before a Gazetted Officer if she so desired. She declined the offer. He also offered search of the members of the raidingparty by the appellant which was also declined. He then checked the bagcarried by the appellant which was found to contain a slab of charaswrapped in a polythene bag. Then lady HC Keshwanti on direction of thesi searched the person of the appellant. From right pocket of her Kurta 38purias of heroin wrapped in a newspaper and covered in polythene paperwere recovered. Weighing scales were procured. Sample of 100 grams wasseparated from the charas. Then lady HC Keshwanti on direction of thesi searched the person of the appellant. From right pocket of her Kurta 38purias of heroin wrapped in a newspaper and covered in polythene paperwere recovered. Weighing scales were procured. Sample of 100 grams wasseparated from the charas. Contents of all the PURIAS collectively weighed6 grams out of which 2 grams was separated as sample. The sample parcelsand the remaining articles were then separately sealed with the seal impression SSR of the SI. In the meanwhile the SHO, Inspector A. P. Rai alsoreached the spot. SI Shanker Siagh narrated the facts to him and producedthe accused and the case property before him. He affixed his seal impressionapr upon all the parcels. Site plan was prepared. Rukka was sent to thepolice station. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. SI Shankersingh handed over his seal to the public witness Sunil. CFSL Form wasalso prepared at the spot. The sample parcels were later on sent to CFSLand on receipt of a report the challan was filed and the appellant convictedand sentenced as stated above. ( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised various contentions whichare as follows. (1) The public witness in this case has not supported thecase of the prosecution (2) CFSL Form which was alleged to have beenprepared at the spot was neither deposited in the Malkhana nor there is anyevidence to indicate that it was taken to CFSL by the constable when hewent there along with the sample parcels. (3) The option of search allegedlygiven by the police to the appellant was a partial option inasmuch as shewas only asked whether she desires to be searched by a gezetted officer. She was not given any option to be searched by a Magistrate in the alternative as mentioned in Section 50 of the NDPS Act. (4) The search in thiscase yielding the recovery of charas was taken by SI Shanker Singh againstthe mandate of Section 50 (4) of the Act according to which a female shouldbe searched by a female only and (5) The SHO did not hand over his sealafter its use to any witness and thus the sample could be tampered with atany time. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the State all the aforesaid arguments were refuted. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the State all the aforesaid arguments were refuted. It may be noted that Sunil Sethi, public witness, who appeared as PW-5deposed that he neither knew the appellant nor anything was recovered inhis presence from her. He was asked by the SHO to sign some blank papersin PS Vasant Vihar which he did sign. He was acting as a special policeofficer in those days. He admitted his signatures on the various documentsof the case but he said that he did not know their contents because thecontents were not written in his presence. He was declared hostile Hemaintained his stand of having not witnessed the occurrence even in crossexamination by the A PP. There was, however, no question put to himabout the fact that he was not a special police officer and he was deposingfalsely in this respect. On the other hand SI Shanker Singh who appearedas PW-8 was cross-examined in this respect. He said that he was not awareif Sunil Sethi was a special police officer or that he had a shop of electronicgoods near the Police Station itself since about one year before the allegedrecovery of the case property. Prima facie it is not possible to believe thatsi Shanker Singh who had remained posted in that area for quite a longtime would not know Sethi at all or that he was not a special police officer. Thus it casts an initial suspicion on the veracity of the prosecution case whenit is not supported by a public witness who was a special police officer inthose days. In such a situation the prosecution case has to be scrutinisedmore carefully. CFSL Form was allegedly prepared at the spot. PW-3narain Singh, Head Constable was the Moharrar Malkhana at the relevanttime. He does not say a single word whether the CPSL Form was alsodeposited along with the case property. Similarly SI Shanker Singh doesnot say a word in this respect. PW-6 Constable Harinder Singh received thesample parcels from the Moharrar Malkhana vide certificate No. 97/21 anddeposited the same in the CFSL. Initially he said in the examination-in-chiefthat the parcels were sealed with the seal impression SSR only. He had tobe declared hostile. Similarly SI Shanker Singh doesnot say a word in this respect. PW-6 Constable Harinder Singh received thesample parcels from the Moharrar Malkhana vide certificate No. 97/21 anddeposited the same in the CFSL. Initially he said in the examination-in-chiefthat the parcels were sealed with the seal impression SSR only. He had tobe declared hostile. Even in cross-examination by the APP, he again saidthat as far as he remembered there was only one seal impression of SSR onthe parcels and could not say whether there were two seal impressions ofssr and APR on those parcels. A copy of the entries in the Malkhanaregister Ex. PW3/a was also produced on record. It also does not indicateif CFSL Form was deposited along with the case property. It may be notedthat the preparation of CFSL form with the seal impressions at the spot orin the police station before the SHO and its deposit in the Malkhana provides a very valuable safeguard for an accused person. The punishmentprovided for violation of the provisions of this Act is visited by very severesentence. The minimum sentence prescribed is 10 years RI and a fine ofrs. 1 lac. In such a situation, it is the incumbent duty of the investigatingagency to meticulously follow the safeguards provided in the Act. If strictcompliance is not insisted, it is likely to play havoc with the presumption ofinnocence of an accused person. It is so especially in the present case whenthe constable who took the sample parcels to CFSL is not even certainwhether those parcels bore one seal impression or both. In the case of Safiullah v. Slate (Delhi Administration) 1993, (l) Crimes, =l (1993) CCR 161this Court held that in a case where the CFSL Form is neither filled nordeposited with the Moharrar Malkhana, the independent witness resiles andthe seal is not handed over to an independent witness, possibility of thetampering of the seal and the contents of parcels could not be ruled outand thus the link evidence necessary to establish the guilt of the accusedremained missing. To the same effect are other authorities of this Court asreported in Lachho Devi v. State, 1990 (2) C. C. Cases 395 and Anoop Joshi v. State, 1992 (2) C. C. Cases 314-11 (1992) CCR 1566. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant also seems to be right regarding the partial option given to the appellant in the matter of search. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant also seems to be right regarding the partial option given to the appellant in the matter of search. Shewas only asked whether she desired to be searched by a Gazetted Officer. She was not informed that in the alternative she could also be taken to amagistrate for search. This is a clear violation of Section 50 of the NDPSAct which requires that an accused person should be given the option ofbeing searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, there is no merit in the submission of learned Counselfor the appellant that the search in this case was not taken in accordancewith law. The bag was held by the appellant in her hand only from whichcharas was allegedly recovered by SI Shanker Singh. The person of theappellant was allegedly searched by lady HC Keshwanti. I do not find anyviolation of procedure in this respect as enjoined by Section 50 (4) of thendps Act. ( 7 ) TO maintain the sanctity of the sample taking process, it isdesirable if seal after use is handed over by police official to an independentwitness or at least some other police official in the raiding party when nopublic witness is joined on account of non-availability. The SHO in this casedid not hand over his seal to anybody. The handing over of the seal by SIShanker Singh to Sunil Sethi is also doubtful because he does not supportthe case of the prosecution at all. ( 8 ) THERE is no satisfactory reply to the aforesaid submissions of thelearned Counsel for the appellant on behalf of the State. Therefore, I amof the view that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. She is accordingly acquitted. Her personal bond and bail bond will stand cancelled. She be set at liberty if not wanted in any other cases or proceedings.