Honble SHARMA, J.–The appellant was the accused in Sessions Special Case No. 229/93, on the file of learned Special Judge NDPS Cases and Sessions Judge, Kota. He was found guilty under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for shot the Act) convicted thereunder and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. (2). Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to. (3). I have considered the rival submissions and scanned the record. (4). On the fateful day of March 15, 1993 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused appe- llant (for short the accused) was arrested under Section 8/21 of the Act. The allegation was that he was in illegal possession of 1-1/2 gms. of smack. Charge sheet was filed against the accused and the accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused stated that he was falsely implica- ted by the police personnel. (5). The learned trial court after hearing the rival submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated hereinabove. (6). Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for appearing for the accused drew my attention towards the following infirmities of the prosecution case: (i) According to the description of article indicated in the FSL report Ex. P/10 the substance which was received at the FSL weighed 2.830 gms. along with polythene bag. According to seizure memo of alleged contraband Ex. P/2 the smack weighed 1-1/2 gms. was recovered and weight of contraband along with polythene was 3 gms. PW.3 Ramnarain, SHO, Police Station Taleda, who conducted the search stated in his examination in chief as under: ^^rjktw ckV eaxokdj rksy fd;k rks ckjnkuk lfgr Lesd dk otu 2 xzke gqvk o ckjnkus lfgr Lesd dk [kjk otu Ms<+ xzke gqvkA** (ii) Though two independent witnesses Hemraj PW.2 and Jagdish Prasad PW.4, had attested the recovery of alleged contraband but they have not supported the prosecution case before the learned trial court and they were declared hostile. (iii) The mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act have been flouted. (iv) The prosecution has failed to prove that the seal was intact while the alleged contraband was kept in Malkhana. (iii) The mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act have been flouted. (iv) The prosecution has failed to prove that the seal was intact while the alleged contraband was kept in Malkhana. (v) Seal was not handed over by the Investigating Officer to the independent person. (7). Raising the aforesaid objections Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel concluded that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the crime and accused should be given the benefit of doubt. Reliance was placed on State of Rajasthan vs. Balbir Singh (1), Chhaju Khan vs. The State of Rajasthan (2), Rajaram vs. The State of Rajasthan (3) and Mahmood vs. State of U.P. (4). (8). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri G.D. Parwal, supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the accused was rightly convicted. (9). Drug Control Legislation has, as it primary aim, the protection of public welfare by preserving health and eliminating undesirable social and moral effects commonly associated with the indiscriminate use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Use of such drugs and substances cripples intellects, dwarfs bodies, paralyses the progress of a substantial segment of our society and frequently makes hopeless and sometimes violent and murderous criminals of persons of all ages who become its victims. Such consequences call for the most vig- orous laws to suppress the drug abuse. The plain and apparent object of the Act is to prevent by a rigid control of the possession of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the danger of public health, and to guard society against the social evils which an uncontrolled traffic in drugs is bound to generate. (10). But with a view to achieve the object of the Act interest of innocent citi- zen has to be protected from illegal or irregular invasions of his liberties by the authorities. The interest of the State cannot be magnified by the authorities by vanishing the afeguards provided in the Act for the protection of citizen and by adopting irregular methods. (11). In the case on hand, it is to be seen as to whether the mandatory provi- sions of the Act have been followed in letter and spirit by the prosecution agency. Admittedly the Malkhana Incharge with whom the alleged contraband was kept was not produced by the prosecution. (11). In the case on hand, it is to be seen as to whether the mandatory provi- sions of the Act have been followed in letter and spirit by the prosecution agency. Admittedly the Malkhana Incharge with whom the alleged contraband was kept was not produced by the prosecution. The Malkhana Incharge was the only person who could have testified that the seal was not tampered with. It is necessary for the investigating officer to depose that the alleged contraband was seized and sea- led and was kept in Malkhana and its seal was not tampered with. (12). In State of Rajasthan vs. Balbir Singh & Anr. (supra), the Division Bench of this court indicated thus: ``Curiously enough Sitaram, Investigating Officer, did not say in his deposition that the seals on these articles were not tampered with while they were in custody of the police and before they were sent for examination to the Director, State Forensic Jaipur. Such an evidence is missing in this case and so we do not feel persuaded to place the same reliance on the discovery of the blood stains on these articles as we would placed if necessary evidence had been produced by the prosecution that from the time the articles came into possession of the police to the time they were sent for examination to the Director, State Forensic Jaipur, the seals put on these articles at the time of their recoveries remained in tact and were not tampered with by any person. (13). Mahmood vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of the view that the investigator should take necessary precaution after sealing the article to entrust his seal to the Sarpanch or any other respectable person of the village. (14). Contention of Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel is that in the case on hand it was the duty of the investigating officer after sealing the alleged contraband to take necessary precaution in respect of entrustment of seal to independent respectable person so as to avoid the chance of tampering the seal. The ratio of Mahmood vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajaram vs. The State of Rajasthan (supra). (15). In the light of the arguments advanced before me I carefully scanned the statement of the Investigating Officer, Ramnarain, PW.3. The ratio of Mahmood vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajaram vs. The State of Rajasthan (supra). (15). In the light of the arguments advanced before me I carefully scanned the statement of the Investigating Officer, Ramnarain, PW.3. He deposed in his examination in chief that: ^^ftl eksgj ls eky dks lhy eksgj fd;k Fkk mldk bEizsku QnZ ij yx;k Fkk tks iznkZ ih 2 ij okbZ LFkku ij rhu txg gSA ;g eksgj Fkkuk cikoj dh gSA esjs ukedh eksgj ml le; cuh gqbZ ugha Fkh blfy, Fkkuk cikoj dh eksgj ls eky dks lhycan fd;k x;k FkkA okilh Fkkuk ij eqyfte cuokjhyky ds f[kykQ eqdnek ntZ fd;k o iz-lw-fj- pkd dhA blds ckn lhylqnk eky dks eky[kkuk esa tek djkrs le; nqckjk mlh lhy ls nqckjk lhy fd;k x;k o uuwuk lhy dk pLik eky[kkuk jft- ij Hkh fd;k x;kA** (16). The Investigating Officer, exhibited the certified copy of the Malkhana Register Ex.P/8 but did not say a single word in his entire statement that the seal of the alleged article was not tampered with while it was in the custody of the police or in possession of the Malkhana Incharge. Similarly in his entire statement the Investigating Officer did not depose that the seal was handed over to some independent person. The Investigating Officer has in his examination in chief also stated that the weight of seized contraband was 2 gms along with bardana, whereas a look at the seizure memo reveals that the weight of seizure along with bardana was 3 gms. and in the FSL report the substance which was received at the FSL weighed 2.380 gms. along with polythene bag. Under these circumstances a doubt creates in mind that the sample which was received and analysed by the FSL was the sample of the alleged seized smack. The above conduct of the investigating officer leaves an unhappy impression in my mind lesser I say about his conduct better it is. The independent motbirs did not support the prosecution version. Under these circumstances I am unable to place reliance on the statement of Investigating Officer Ram Narain PW.3, as well as the statements of Sitaram Parasar PW.5 and Dashrath Singh PW.6, who were ASI and Headconstables at the relevant time. The independent motbirs did not support the prosecution version. Under these circumstances I am unable to place reliance on the statement of Investigating Officer Ram Narain PW.3, as well as the statements of Sitaram Parasar PW.5 and Dashrath Singh PW.6, who were ASI and Headconstables at the relevant time. Therefore, under these circumstances lingering doubt does arise regarding the genuineness of recovery of smack from the possession of the accused. (17). Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment dated 16.3.1996 of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Kota cum Sessions Judge, Kota, is set aside and the accused appellant shall stand acquitted from the charge under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The accused appellant is in custody, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The record of the case be sent forthwith.