V. K. CHATURVEDI, J. Roshan and Hakeem Ullah have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23-9-1999 passed by Special Judge, E. C. Act, Basti in special case No. 27 of 1995 convicting the appellant Roshan under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and sentencing him 15 years R. I. and fine of Rs. one lac. The appellant Hakeem Ullah was convicted under Section 20 (b) (2) of the Act and sentenced to five years R. I. and fine of Rs. 20,000. 2. Heard Sri D. S. Misra and Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A. Perused the lower Court record. 3. Both the appeals are connected. They are related to the same time and arrest of the appellants. Same question of law and evidence involved and they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 4. Appellants Roshan and Hakeem Ullah were arrested by S. O. V. P. Shukla on 29-9-1987 and from possession of the appellant Roshan about 4 Kg. Charas and from the possession of Hakeem Ullah about 10 Kg. Ganja were said to have been recovered at about 7. 30 p. m. for which a First Information Report was lodged against appellant Roshan in crime No. 155 of 1987 under Section 20-B/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter referred as "the Act" and against appellant Hakeem Ullah in crime No. 156 of 1987 under Section 20 (1) of the Act. 5. According to the prosecution case on 29-9-1987 when P. W. 4 S. O. V. P. Shukla alongwith other police personnel were in patrolling duty at about 7. 30 p. m. he saw two persons coming from the railway station. They were intercepted. They tried to run away. After few passes both were arrested. On being searched from the right hand of the appellant Roshan four bags containing about 4 Kg. contraband Charas were recovered and from the possession of the appellant Hakeem Ullah about 10 Kg. Ganja were recovered. The sample were taken and contraband articles were seized and Fard recovery were prepared on the spot; a copy of which were given to the accused appellants. The appellants alongwith the contraband articles were brought to the police station. P. W. 3 Inspector Shivanand, after investigating the case, submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants. Ganja were recovered. The sample were taken and contraband articles were seized and Fard recovery were prepared on the spot; a copy of which were given to the accused appellants. The appellants alongwith the contraband articles were brought to the police station. P. W. 3 Inspector Shivanand, after investigating the case, submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants. Charge under Section 23 of the Act was framed against the appellant Roshan and under Section 20 (B) (1) of the Act against the appellant Hakimullah. Both have pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. In defence they produced D. W. 1 Mohd. Habib Khan and D. W. 2 Naveen @ Nand Kishor. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P. W. 1 Islam, P. W. 2 Constable Paramhans Mall, P. W. 3 I. O. Shivanand Inspector and P. W. 4, the arresting officer V. P. Shukla. After recording the evidence, Special Judge, E. C. Act, Basti, by a common judgment, convicted the appellant Roshan under Section 23 of the Act and appellant Hakeem Ullah under Section 20 (b) (1) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction of the appellant Roshan under Section 23 of the Act is against the evidence on record because there is no legal evidence that the contraband Charas was brought from Nepal. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the time of recovery is also doubtful and the public witness P. W. 1 has not supported the prosecution case, the conviction cannot be sustained on single testimony of police officer, P. W. 3 Shivanand is a second officer under the subordination of P. W. 4 V. P. Shukla, hence the investigation is not fair. It is also contended that there is no link evidence and no compliance of Section 55 and Section 57 of the Act. 7. P. W. 1 Islam, an independent witness, stated during the trial that the appellants were not arrested in his presence and nothing was recovered from their possession. He was declared hostile and on cross- examination by the public prosecutor he stated that he did not give any statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. 8. 7. P. W. 1 Islam, an independent witness, stated during the trial that the appellants were not arrested in his presence and nothing was recovered from their possession. He was declared hostile and on cross- examination by the public prosecutor he stated that he did not give any statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. 8. P. W. 2 Constable Paramhans stated that on 31-10-1987 he brought the contraband articles of both the cases from the Malkhana to the Court and there he got signature of the Magistrate on the covering letter of both the sample, affixed the Court seal and same were proved by him as Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2. He further stated that the samples of both the cases were deposited by him in the office of the Chemical examiner. The sample of crime No. 155 of 1987 (Roshan) was deposited on 11-11-1987 while the sample of crime No. 156 of 1987 (Hakeem Ullah) was deposited on 3-11-1987. He has nowhere stated in his statement that since 29- 9-1987 till 31-10-1987 where the recovered contraband articles were kept and in whose custody. He has also not stated that during the period of 29-9-1987 till 31-10-1987 the seal was intact. 9. P. W. 3, the Investigating Officer, Shivanand stated that he submitted charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-8 and Ka-9, against the appellants on 5-10-1987 while the chemical examiner report, Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11, is dated 28-1-1988 and 2-2-1988. He proved the registration of the case, Ext. Ka-3, Ka-4 and Ka-5. He further stated that the case was registered in his absence. On 30-9-1987 he recorded the statement of accused persons and other police personnel and inspected the spot and prepared site plan and proved the same as Ext. Ka-6 and Ka-7. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not sent any special report to his superior police officials. 10. P. W. 4 V. P. Shukla stated that he alongwith constable Yogendra Kumar Pandey, constable Deo Kumar Singh and constable Nizamuddin Khan were in patrolling duty. He saw two persons coming from railway station. Both were apprehended and from the possession of the appellant Roshan, from his right hand in four polethine bags about 4 Kg. Charas was recovered and from the possession of appellant Hakeem Ullah, in a polethine bag, about 10 Kg. Ganja was recovered. He saw two persons coming from railway station. Both were apprehended and from the possession of the appellant Roshan, from his right hand in four polethine bags about 4 Kg. Charas was recovered and from the possession of appellant Hakeem Ullah, in a polethine bag, about 10 Kg. Ganja was recovered. He further stated that after taking out the sample contraband articles were sealed and brought the contraband articles and accused persons to the police station. In his cross examination he has admitted that the Investigating Officer is his second officer. He has also stated that no special report was sent by him to the senior police officials. He has also not produced or proved the general diary of his departure from the police station. The Fard was prepared on the spot in the dark. He has nowhere stated in his statement that from 29-9-1987 till 31-10-1987 where the contraband articles were kept and in whose custody. He has further stated that during the trial the recovered contraband articles were not produced before him. 11. From the statements of these witnesses it is clear that during the trial the recovered contraband articles were not produced before any of the witness. Except P. W. 4 V. P. Shukla, no other police personnel, who were accompanying with him at the time of recovery was produced by the prosecution. The conviction is based only on his single testimony. For the reasons best known to the prosecution the seized article were not identified either by the witnesses of fact or by the Investigating Officer. Non production of seized article before the Court at the time of statement of witnesses of fact rendered their testimony unworthy of reliance because it cannot be said that the articles which were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellants were the same which were sent for analysis. 12. A perusal of the record shows that there is no evidence that the contraband Charas or Ganja were being brought from Nepal, though P. W. 4, in his statement, stated that the village from where the appellants were arrested is near the border of Nepal. In absence of any evidence of expert it cannot be proved that the recovered articles were brought from Nepal. In absence of any evidence on this point conviction of the appellant Roshan under Section 23 of the Act is not sustainable. 13. In absence of any evidence of expert it cannot be proved that the recovered articles were brought from Nepal. In absence of any evidence on this point conviction of the appellant Roshan under Section 23 of the Act is not sustainable. 13. According to the statement of P. W. 3 he submitted charge- sheet on 5-10-1987. The report of chemical examiner, Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11 is dated 28-1-1988 and 2-2-1988. There is no evidence on record to show that on what basis the Investigating Officer formed his opinion that the recovered contraband article was of Ganja and Charas without the report of chemical examiner. 14. From the evidence on record it can be gathered that there is no link evidence on the point that after the recovery of contraband articles on 29-9-1987 where and in whose custody the seized articles were kept before taking to the Court on 31-10- 1987. There is also no evidence on record to show that the recovered contraband articles remained intact in sealed bag for a period of more than one month. There is also no evidence on the point that after receiving both the samples from the Court by P. W. 2 on 31- 10-1987, why one sample was deposited in the office of chemical examiner on 3-11-1987 and other was on 11-11-1987, as it is clear from the report of chemical examiner, Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11. In this period where the sample were kept and who handled the same. In absence of any link evidence on this yield aspect it is not proved the articles, which were sealed according to recovery memo were the same which were sent for chemical analysis as has been held by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Valsala v. State of Kerala reported in 1993 JIC 557 (SC) ; 1993 SCC (Crl) 1092, and the Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Charan v. State reported in 1999 (1) JIC 167 (All) (LB) ; 1999 (2) EFR 119. 15. Regarding the next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Investigating Officer is subordinate officer of P. W. 4 and the investigation is not fair, he relied upon the judgments reported in 1995 U. P. Criminal Rulings-57, Ragubir v. State and 1996 (2) JIC 1860 (All) ; 1995 U. P. Criminal Rulings 349, Ram Jatan v. State. It was held in both the cases that the investigation by subordinate officer could not be an independent finding and can be treated as tainted and no reliance can be placed upon it. In the case in hand P. W. 3 Shivanand stated that he is second officer of P. W. 4 V. P. Shukla. This is another lacuna in prosecution case which makes this case doubtful one. 16. Regarding other contention raised that the conviction cannot be based only on single testimony of police witnesses, learned counsel for the appellants have relied the case of Koluttumottil Razak v. State of Kerala, reported in 2000 (4) SCC 462, Bahadur Singh v. State of M. P. , reported in 2002 (1) JIC 216 (SC) ; 2002 (44) ACC 1049. In the first case the Apex Court held that non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act would render resultant search and seizure suspect. In such a situation evidence of the police officers required to be corroborated by independent evidence which in the present case was not done. In the second case the Apex Court held that conviction on sole testimony of police witnesses is not maintainable. They were serious discrepancies in recovery, seizure and deposit in Malkhana. The prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the conviction is based on sole testimony of P. W. 4 V. P. Shukla though, he admitted in his statement that public witnesses were there but public witness P. W. 1 Islam did not support the prosecution case nor the recovery and arrest of the appellant. There are serious discrepancies in recovery, deposit in Malkhana, deposit in the office of chemical examiner, in these circumstances no reliance can be placed on the single testimony of police officer, P. W. 4. 17. From the evidence on record one more aspect is noteworthy. Section 57 of the Act, which deals with making of full report of all the particulars of the arrest and seizure to immediate official superior, has not been complied with. Provision of Section 57 of the Act requires that whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act he shall within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. Provision of Section 57 of the Act requires that whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act he shall within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. The evidence on record is silent about the compliance of this provision. Failure to comply with the said provision will have a bearing on appreciation of evidence recorded, arrest or seizure as well as on the merits of the case as has been held in the case of Gurbux Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2001 (1) JIC 923 (SC) and Thandi Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in 1999 (2) JIC 216 (SC); 1999 ACC 850. 18. In view of the above discussions the recovery from the possession of the appellants become suspect and the conviction of the appellant Roshan under Section 23 of the Act and conviction of appellant Hakeem Ullah under Section 20 (b) (1) of the Act rendered bad in law. 19. In the result both the appeals succeeds. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Roshan under Section 23 of the Act and conviction and sentence of appellant Hakeem Ullah under Section 20 (b) (1) of the Act passed by Special Judge, Basti dated 23-8- 1999, are hereby set aside. Both the appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. Appeals allowed. .