JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—Appellant Deep Singh is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-6 1994 passed by Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan whereby he has been convicted under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18-11-1989 a police party consisting of a few constables and headed by A. S. I. Om Parkash, was present at Yamuna Bridge at Paonta Sahib for routine checking of the vehicles passing through that bridge. At about 8.40 p.m., they saw the appellant coming on foot over the Yamuna Bridge from the side of Uttar Pradesh border He was having a bag on his shoulder. On seeing the police the appellant tried to run away but he was chased and over-powered. On search a plastic bag filled with poppy straw was found in his bag. On weighing the poppy straw was found to be 4 kgs., out of which 100 gms, was separated as sample and put in i parcel and sealed. Thereafter a written report was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal F. I. R. was registered. The sample was sent to Chemical Examiner, who vide his report Ex, PG opined that its contents were poppy straw. On completion of investigation challan was put up and after trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced Hence the present appeal. 3. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The prosecution has produced PW-I Lachhman Dass, PW-5 Rajinder Singh and PW-6 Sub-Inspector Om Parkash besides other witnesses On the analysis of prosecution evidence, the Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant was apprehended by the police on 18-11-1989 at Yamuna Bridge Barrier and poppy straw weighing 4 Kgs was recovered from him, therefore, the appellant being in exclusive and conscious possession of 4 Kgs. of poppy straw, committed an offence under Sec. 15 of the Act The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the mandatory provisions of section 50 of the Act were not complied with, was rejected holding that it was a case of chance recovery, as such, there was no occasion for complying with these provisions. So far compliance of sections 52 and 57 of the Act is concerned, the Sessions Judge has observed that these provisions are held directory by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balhir Singh, 1994 (2) SLJ 1502, and the appellant can be given benefit thereof only if he shows that by their non-compliance some prejudice has been caused, which he has failed, 4. The first argument addressed by Mr. M. S. Chandel, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the Sessions Judge was not right in holding that it was a case of chance recovery and mandatory provisions of section 50 of the Act were not required to be complied with According to the learned Counsel in view of the statement of Sub-Inspector Om Parkash PYV-6 that Naka bandi used to be arranged at Yamuna Bridge to check import of contraband goods like liquor, narcotic drugs and substances etc. into (he State of Himachal Pradesh and during his tenure he had caught 2-3 cases of narcotic drugs, it can be presumed that he had reason lo believe from his personal knowledge that the appellant had narcotic drugs in his possession, therefore, before making the personal search of the appellant under Sec. 43 of the Act, he was required to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 50 of the Act. It is further submitted that it was not a case where the police was making search for some different purpose and narcotic drug was found by chance to term it chance recovery and take it out from the purview of section 50 of the Act. 5. We do not find any substance in this submission. There may be instances of smuggling of contraband including narcotic drugs from Uttar Pradesh to Himachal Pradesh through Yamuna Bridge and Nakas are periodically held by the police for apprehending the accused but these facts are not enough to presume that Sub ^Inspector Om Parkash PW-6 had reasons to believe from his personal knowledge that the appellant was carrying narcotic drugs on 18-11-1989, when he was apprehended. At the most, there could be suspicion that he was carrying a contraband, which suspicion was further deepened by his conduct of fleeing away on seeing the police party and ultimately turned into reason to believe from the personal knowledge of Sub-inspector Om Parkash PW-6 when he had already completed the search of the bag of the appellant. Therefore, there was no occasion for complying with the provisions of section 50 of the Act, which are no doubt mandatory. It h not correct that solitary instance of chance recovery is when narcotic drug is found while making search for a different purpose. There can be many more instances of chance recovery as by the word chance means all of a sudden or unexpected in which case there cannot be any prior information or knowledge In para 14 of their judgment in State of Punjab v. Baibir Singh (supra) the Honble Judges of the Supreme Court while explaining the meaning of treason to believe have referred to the meaning of term as given in section 26, I P.C, which is as under :— "Reason to believe. A person is said to have reason to believe a thing, if be has sufficient cause to believe that tiling but not otherwise" 6. For sufficient cause to believe one must have some material on which the belief is grounded, may be secret information or some other facts and circumstances, as the case may be. Whether there is such reason to believe, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. So far the present case is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that Sub-Inspector Om Parkash PW-6 had reason to believe that the appellant was carrying narcotic drug at the time he was apprehended, 7. The next point raised by Mr. Chander is that the provisions of section 100, Cr. So far the present case is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that Sub-Inspector Om Parkash PW-6 had reason to believe that the appellant was carrying narcotic drug at the time he was apprehended, 7. The next point raised by Mr. Chander is that the provisions of section 100, Cr. P. C. are not complied with, inasmuch as, no explanation has come forward from the prosecution for not calling upon two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality, which is admittedly a busy place and a number of persons were present at the relevant time According to the learned Counsel, Rajinder Singh PW-5 before whom the alleged search was made and seizure memo was prepared, was employed by a contractor to pull up and down the barricade on the toll tax barrier, as such, in all probabilities he was not serious and conscious witness of the search and seizure and had put his signatures on the seizure memo as directed by the police. The seal put on the parcel sample was handed over to this witness but he failed to produce it in the Court He did not even recognize the appellant in the Court. 8. Again, we do not find any substance in this submission There is nothing in the cross-examination or otherwise on record to show that Rajinder Singh PW-5 was not an independent witness and he was not associated by the police with the search and seizure in question We find that the provisions of subsection (4) of section 100, Cr. P, C. have been duly complied with. By now section 100, Cr. P. C is held to be directory, violation of which does not invalidate the trial or the conviction. If total non-compliance of a directory provision has caused prejudice and resulted into failure of justice which may have an adverse effect on the prosecution case, the Court is required to keep in view while appreciating the evidence, but the present case does not fall in such a category, 9. The next argument raised by Mr. Chandel is that from the evidence on record the prosecution has not been able to prove that the sample Ex. The next argument raised by Mr. Chandel is that from the evidence on record the prosecution has not been able to prove that the sample Ex. PA was not tampered with from the time it was sealed and the time it reached the Chemical Examiner, According to the learnad Counsel serious doubt arises from number of facts and circumstances on the record These are: (i) seal X with which the parcel was sealed and handed over to Rajinder Singh PW-5, was not produced by him in the Court ; (ii) according to Sub-Inspector Om Parkash PW-6, sample was sealed with seal H and not X ; (iii) it has not been proved on record whether the sample of seal X was prepared and sent to the Chemical Examiner ; (v) the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner after about one year and there is nothing on record to explain this delay ; (vi) entry of Malkhana Register stating number of seals and particulars thereof has not been produced and (vii) forwarding letter of Superintendent of Police sending parcel to the Chemical Examiner not exhibited. Mr. Chandel has further pointed out that even the certificate affixed on the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. P~6 is vague, inasmuch as, it does not give the number of seals found on the parcel and details thereof, and it seems to have been put in a casual and routine manner, as such, it cannot be said with certainty which parcel was received by the Chemical Examiner. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, is not able to reply this submission satisfactorily. We find that there is inordinate delay in sending the parcel to the Chemical Examiner of a period from 18-11-1989 to 15-10-1990 when it was dispatched, which definitely raises serious doubt about its safe custody. The other facts and circumstances on record, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, further show that there was every likelihood of tampering of the sample. The most vital facts and circumstances are that the seal has not been produced in the Court by Rajioder Singh PW-5 and according to Sub-Inspector Om Parkash, a different seal H was put on the parcel. The most vital facts and circumstances are that the seal has not been produced in the Court by Rajioder Singh PW-5 and according to Sub-Inspector Om Parkash, a different seal H was put on the parcel. Without proving affirmatively that the report of the Chemical Examiner pertains to the same material which was seized, the prosecution cannot succeed and the appellant cannot be held guilty of such a serious offence, the minimum punishment of which is so harsh, [Please refer to : Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1990) 4 SCC 692 ; Khalak Singh v, State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 C/ LJ 1150 ; Wilson Dayal v. State, 1993 (I) Crimes 207 and Valsala v. State of Kerala, 1994 Cr LJ (SC) 1] 10. Another argument raised by Mr. Chandel is that though Sees, 52 and 57 of the Act are directory but their total non-compliance has caused a serious prejudice and resulted into failure of justice. The learned Counsel has specifically pointed out that grounds of arrest were not given to the appellant, as provided under sub-section (1) of section 57 of the Act and full report of particulars of arrest and seizure was not made to the immediate superior Officer within 48 hours. We do not find substance in this submission, as the report was made to the S H. O., the immediate superior Officer without any delay, who had further sent it to the Superintendent of Police, as stated by Sub-Inspector Om Parkash PW-6 in his cross-examination. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was not informed of the grounds of his arrest. We are not satisfied that sections 52 and 57 of the Act are not totally complied with, which has prejudiced the case of the appellant, as alleged by the learned Counsel, 11. In view of our findings hereinabove that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the parcel of sample of poppy straw Ex. PA was not tempered with, which creates a serious doubt that the report of the Chemical Examiner pertains to the same material which was seized from the appellant, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the impugned judgment We need not deal with other minor points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, 12. PA was not tempered with, which creates a serious doubt that the report of the Chemical Examiner pertains to the same material which was seized from the appellant, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the impugned judgment We need not deal with other minor points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, 12. In the result, the appeal is accepted and judgment dated 1-6-1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith. Appeal allowed.