Judgment Amar Bir Singh Gill, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against judgment of acquittal dated July 10, 1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, by which Om Parkash respondent has been acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The case against the respondent in the trial Court was that on October 2, 1991, while holding nakabandi by the police including Inspector Joginder Singh, Pritam Singh, Sarpanch and Iqbal Singh along with other police officials near Nasrala Choe Bridge, two persons were apprehended at about 4.00 a.m. who on noticing the presence of the police party tried to retreat their steps. On questioning, they informed that they were carrying charas in the Jhola. Inspector Joginder Singh immediately informed Sh. B.S. Grewal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, through wireless about the apprehension of two persons having charas in their possession who reached the place and also searched Om Parkash respondent and recovered 1 kg of charas from the Jhola in his possession. 10 grams of charas was separated as sample for the purpose of analysis. The sample and the remaining charas were made into separate sealed parcels and taken into possession in the presence of public witnesses. The Chemical Examiner confirmed the sample as of charas. The case was supported by PW1 Mangal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, and PW2 Sh. B.S Grewal, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Besides, affidavits of formal witnesses were tendered in evidence. The respondent denied the recovery and claimed false implication. He did not produce any defence. Considering the material before it, the trial Court acquitted him of the charge and hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. The trial Court considered the case of the prosecution weak for non- compliance of sections 50 and 55 of the Act. We consider that compliance of section 50 of the Act in this particular case was not required since the recovery was effected from a Jhola in possession of the respondent and it was not a case of personal search. The trial Court considered the case of the prosecution weak for non- compliance of sections 50 and 55 of the Act. We consider that compliance of section 50 of the Act in this particular case was not required since the recovery was effected from a Jhola in possession of the respondent and it was not a case of personal search. In a similar case reported as Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 402 : 1999(4) RCR (Crl.) 575 (SC), Supreme Court observed as under :- "..........If a person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and narcotic drug or the psychotropic substance is found from it, it cannot be said that it was found from his `person. In this case heroin ws found from a bag belonging to the appellant and not from his person and therefore it was not necessary to make an offer for search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate." 5. Section 55 of the Act requires the deposit of seized material in the charge of and safe custody of the officer-in-charge of the police station pending orders of the Magistrate. In this case, according to the statement made by PW1 Mangal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, the case property was deposited with Moharrir Head Constable Gurdial Singh. In the affidavit Exhibit PF, Moharrir Head Constable Gurdial Singh had stated that on 02-10- 1991 he received the case property in sealed condition and the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner on 10.10.1991 through Constable Surinder Singh. In the affidavit of Moharrir Head Constable Gurdial Singh or statement of PW1 Mangal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, it is no where mentioned that the case property at any stage was entrusted to the officer-in-charge of the police station nor there is any mention if the case property was ever sealed by the officer-in-charge of the police station. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports 333, in relation to compliance of section 55 of the Act, has observed as under :- "This Section enjoins a duty upon an officer-in-charge of the Police Station to receive and keep the goods and articles seized under this Act within the local area of the Police Station. He is also required to affix his own seal to all the samples. He is also required to affix his own seal to all the samples. The clear intention of the Legislature was a fair investigation by putting the seized material beyond the reach of the seizing officer and by eliminating the possibility of the sample being tampered with till the same reached the hands of the Chemical Examiner." 6. Since, in the instant case, the prescribed procedure has been given a go- by, it gives arise to suspicion in respect of false implication. No merit. Dismissed.