JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.—The present respondent was prosecuted under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) and after trial had been acquitted vide judgment dated 22-5-1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Kangra, camp at Chamba. 2. The prosecution case, as put up against the respondent, has been that on 23rd November, 1986 police party headed by ASI Lekh Ram was present on the main vehicular road adjoining Gaila Nullah located ahead of Village Sarol and had put in Nakabandi in that area as a general routine. At about 3.30 a. m. the accused/respondent on suspicion was apprehended, who was coming from the side of village Kudku along with a bag (Ex> P-3) containing cardboard canon (Ex, PI) meant for package of Battery Cell and therein he was allegedly found carrying 500 gms. of Charas in the form of sticks wrapped in a polythene paper, The aforesaid Charas was recovered on effecting personal search of the accused and out of the bulk, 10 gms. of Charas was taken as a representative sample which was put in an empty match-box The sample and the remaining charas were sealed in two separate packets and then put into cloth parcels and were sealed with seal K. The seal after being used was handled over to constable Prithi Chand (PW 1). The arrest, search and seizure memos of the charas were allegedly prepared through ASI Lekh Ram (PW 1). This PW 2 immediately sent a Ruqua (Ex. PC) to the police station, Chamba, on the basis of which a formal F L R. (Ex. PC/1) was registered. ASI Lekh Ram (PW 1) prepared the site plan and on arrival at police station at 9 a. m deposited the two sealed parcels with Moharrar Head Constable Hari Nath The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Karnal, who vide his report (Ex. PE) opined the contents to be that of Charas. On completion of the investigation, the accused was prosecuted, as referred to above. The aforesaid acquittal order has been assailed on behalf of the State on various grounds 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also minutely scrutinised the entire record 4. PE) opined the contents to be that of Charas. On completion of the investigation, the accused was prosecuted, as referred to above. The aforesaid acquittal order has been assailed on behalf of the State on various grounds 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also minutely scrutinised the entire record 4. As per prosecution case, it was not a planned raid but on (he other hand the police party was present at the spot and had sealed the area in general routine, when the accused respondent all of a sudden was apprehended on suspicion and out of his personal search the alleged charas was recovered. On the basis of the circumstances present and established in this case, the learned Sessions Judge, formulated the following points for determination: 1. Whether ordinary cell of police have no power to investigate offences punishable under the NDPS Act and if so whether it vitiates the trial ? 2. Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the recovery of the alleged incriminating articles from the exclusive possession of the accused ? 3. In case point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the contents so recovered are proved to be Charas9 within the meaning of NDPS Act? 4. Whether section 55 of NDPS Act is of mandatory nature and its non-compliance vitiates the trial ? 5. Final Order. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, gave the findings on the aforesaid points as under: Point No. 1 : Yes, but does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the defence. Point No. 2 : Yes. Point No. 3 : No. Point No. 4 : Yes. Point No, 5 : Accused acquitted per operative part of the judgment. 6. Under the provisions of the Act, a special procedure has been required to be followed while effecting search of any incriminating article from the person of the accused. There are certain provisions which are of mandatory nature and have to be complied with to follow the procedure as envisaged under the Act. Not only the procedure but power of entry, search seizure and arrest etc. has been given in favour of the authorised officer as envisaged under section 42 of the Act. There are certain provisions which are of mandatory nature and have to be complied with to follow the procedure as envisaged under the Act. Not only the procedure but power of entry, search seizure and arrest etc. has been given in favour of the authorised officer as envisaged under section 42 of the Act. Section 50 of the Act deals with the conditions under which search of the person shall be conducted and similarly sections 55 and 57 of the Act are other provisions which have to be complied with while taking action under the provisions of the Act. 7. All these aforesaid provisions have to be scrutinised in the back ground of the facts involved in a particular case and under special circumstances, some of these provisions have been held to be of directory in nature and on the other hand under some specific circumstances they have been held to be of mandatory nature. 8. There is no doubt that power of entry, search, seizure and arrest etc. as provided under section 42 of the Act, has been given to some authorised person, who have been so empowered under this Act, by general or special order of the Central Government. That means, it has been held in various cases that in a case of chance recovery this section 42 alongwith section 50 of the Act were of directory in nature but on the other hand in case it is planned raid after getting some secret information regarding an individual person, these provisions have been held to be of mandatory nature and violation of these provisions have been held to be legally sufficient to vitiate the entire trial. However, on the other hand if the recovery is by chance as has been in the present case, these provisions have been held to be of directory in nature and rightly so an accused can be apprehended by the police without there being any information to that effect and the police under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, has got every power to apprehend and search the accused and as a result thereof in case some incriminating article to which provisions of this Act is applicable is recovered then on the basis of provision of sections 42 and 50 of the Act, this recovery cannot be held to be illegal and in violation of those provisions. 9. 9. At this stage the relevant case law laid down by our own High Court and the Apex Court can safely be referred in order to take guidance to dispose of the controversy present in this case. In 19V3 (2) Sim LC p 6, State v. Vidya Devi, Full Bench of this Court made the following observations: “In a chance recovery compliance of sections 41, 42 and 50 of the Act may not be possible, however, in order to succeed on this plea, the prosecution will have to satisfy the conscience of the Court that in the facts and circumstances of (he case, it could not comply with the requirements of these provisions and that by the non-compliance thereof, no prejudice or mis-carriage of justice was caused to the accused. Then, the burden would shift over to the accused to prove prejudice caused to him. Thereafter, the investigation should be immediately handed over to the authorised officer and if circumstances justify, the accused could be detained till the arrival of the competent officers. Thereafter, the investigation has to be carried in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the accused punished in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if found guilty. The provisions of the Act like : .sections 52, 52-A, 55, 57, 58, 61, ^2 etc. are still applicable and have to be followed while conducting the investigation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the opinion of the Division Bench in Sudarshan Kumars case that in a chance recovery where there is no compliance of sections 41 and 42 of the Act, the matter can be investigated under the provisions of the Code, is, with respect, wrong and is, therefore, over-ruled to this extent." 10. In the case in hand, the compliance of section 55 of the Act was involved and in the aforesaid reported case, it has been held that even when the recovery was a chance recovery, thereafter other provisions of the Act which included section 55 were applicable and have to be followed while conducting investigation. 11. 1994 (3) SCC p. 299, State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, has dealt with various aspects and various provisions of the Act. 11. 1994 (3) SCC p. 299, State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, has dealt with various aspects and various provisions of the Act. The following observations and findings of the Apex Court in this reported case relevant to the facts of the present case are reproduced hereunder : "If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offences as provided under the provisions of Cr, P. C. and when such search is completed at that stage section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise If during such search or arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage, onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS Act. In considering whether a provision in a statute is mandatory and the effect of non-compliance of the same, the courts should keep in mind the real intention of the legislature keeping in view the whole scope of the Act and the particular provisions to be construed in the context. The provisions of a statute creating public duties are generally speaking directory." 12. There were other cases cited for consideration of this Court which included JT 1995 (3) SC p. 489, Saiyed mohd Saiyed Umar Salved and others v. The State of Gujarat ; 1994 (6) SCC p. 569, All Mustafa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala. In these cases, provisions of section 50 of the Act were held to be mandatory. There were other cases cited for consideration of this Court which included JT 1995 (3) SC p. 489, Saiyed mohd Saiyed Umar Salved and others v. The State of Gujarat ; 1994 (6) SCC p. 569, All Mustafa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala. In these cases, provisions of section 50 of the Act were held to be mandatory. In the case "reported in JT 1995 (3) p. 489 (supra), the search was effected on the basis of an information received by the Police Inspector that the first appellant was doing the business of selling Charas and in other case reported in 1994 (6) SCC p. 569 (supra), there was a specific information given to the police that a foreigner having charas in his possession was sitting at the Quilon Railway Station and thereafter planned raid and search was conducted. 13. Thus, insofar as the present case was concerned, the learned Sessions Judge, has rightly held that the police in the ordinary law was empowered to effect search and recover incriminating article from the pos session of the accused without complying with mandatory provisions of the Act, in this behalf. It could not be so done because it was a chance recovery and not a planned one. 14. In so far as provisions of section 55 of the Act are concerned, no specific law has been cited so as to appreciate the effect of its non- compliance. In the reported case 1993 (2) Sim LC p. 6 (supra) coupled with 19^4 (3) SCC p. 29J (supra), it has been held that any substance covered by the Act is recovered by chance, from that stage onwards provisions of the Act would be applicable. The provisions of section 55 have to be complied with after seizure of the incriminating article. This provision runs as under : "Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered. The provisions of section 55 have to be complied with after seizure of the incriminating article. This provision runs as under : "Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered. —An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose3 to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station." 15. This section enjoins a duty upon an officer-in-charge of the police station to receive and keep in safe custody the goods and articles seized under the proposed law and delivered to him. if also provides that sample so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station. Needless to say, the possession of such substance is severely dealt with by the provisions of the Act and under section 20 of the Act, the sentence provided has been rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend two lakh rupees This fine could go above two lakh rupees in the case, the court after recording reasons, deem it proper. A special procedure under the Act has been envisaged and on every step a statutory rider has been provided to avoid tampering and to avoid false implication. These provisions which included section 55 of the Act also have to be complied with and the non-compliance definitely creates doubt in the prosecution case. 16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, provisions of section 55 of the Act have not been complied with, In this behalf, the State has pleaded in the grounds of appeal that non-compliance of section 55 of the Act, as held by the trial Court, has vitiated the trial, was again without force and untenable. 16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, provisions of section 55 of the Act have not been complied with, In this behalf, the State has pleaded in the grounds of appeal that non-compliance of section 55 of the Act, as held by the trial Court, has vitiated the trial, was again without force and untenable. It has also been pleaded that in the present case, the sample was taken out from the seized Charas by Sh. Lekh Ram, ASI (PW 2) and the investigation of the subordinate police officials stands verified by the Incharge of Police Station. And as such in such a case, separate seal by the Incharge of Police Station was not called for, being chip of the same block. Thus, provision of section 55 of the Act, as such, with respect to taking of sample in the police station was without substance. 17. Providing, of separate seal on the sample by the Incharge of Police Station, as was required under section 55 of the Act was only a step provided by the statute against tampering so that quality of the substance recovered till it was analysed by the Chemical Examiner, remained the same, In the present case, according to the learned Deputy Advocate General, sealing of the sample by the ASI, who admittedly was not In-charge of the Police Station, would amount to compliance of section 55 of the Act. We think such an interpretation cannot be attributed to the provisions of section 55 of the Act, which were self t explanatory. 18. It has also been contended on behalf of the State that provisions of section 55 of the Act were of directory in nature and non-compliance of the provision has not caused any prejudice to the accused and therefore on this score, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, are to be interfered with. Even if for arguments sake it is assumed that provisions of section 55 of the Act were of directory in nature that does not mean that those have not to be complied with. The only effect of such provisions would be, prosecution has to explain why these were not complied with. If explanation for non-compliance is satisfactory, it has to be seen whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused or not? The only effect of such provisions would be, prosecution has to explain why these were not complied with. If explanation for non-compliance is satisfactory, it has to be seen whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused or not? In the present case, there is absolutely no explanation rendered on behalf of the prosecution as to why these provisions were not complied with. There was sufficient opportunity with the police officials to comply with these provisions. Here, in the present case the non-compliance of these provisions is not being explained, but on the other hand, as referred in the grounds of appeal, it has been submitted that in the facts of the present case, compliance of section 55 was not required or that the same stood complied with when ASI Lekh Ram (PW 2) sealed the sample. 19. Without compliance of section 55 of the Act, as has happened in the present case, the likelihood of the sample having been tampered with could not be ruled out and with this background definitely prejudice has been aucsed to the caused person. 20. Section 2 (iii) (a) of the Act defines Charas and Rule 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 19B5 defines Chemical Examiner which means the Chemical Examiner, Government Opium and Alkalod Works, Neenmch or as the case may be Ghazipur, In the present case, the opinion of the Chemical Examiner Neemuch or Ghazipur was not on record nor it had been procured, produced or proved. The prosecution has only relied upon the opinion of the Chemical Examiner to the Government of Haryana. There is no dispute to the proposition that this opinion of the Chemical Examiner was admissible under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but as per provisions of the Act/Rules referred to above, this opinion of the Chemical Examiner, Karnal, cannot be considered to be the opinion of the Chemical Examiner as defined under Rule, referred to above In case, this opinion is excluded as has been done by the learned Sessions Judge, there does not remain any evidence whatsoever to establish the incriminating article alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused to be Charas. The learned Deputy Advocate General has represented that at that particular time, the Chemical Examiner, Karnal, (Haryana) was not the Chemical Examiner notified under the Act or Rule, but thereafter such notification was there, which even if accepted would not be helpful to the case of the prosecution. 21. In a case of present nature, this court generally does not interfere with the acquittal order unless and until the same has teen based upon per verse appreciation of evidence and law and the present case is not of that nature. The learned Sessions Judge, has passed the acquittal order after correctly appreciating the law and facts on record 22. In view of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any occasion whatsoever to interfere with the order of acquittal validly passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the present appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.