JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.1.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra Dharamshala whereby the appellant/accused (here after referred to as the accused) has been held guilty of the commission of an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as `the NDPS Act') and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.6.2002 JP Singh (PW-1) S.H.O. Dharamshala and other police officials had laid a Naka at village Kaliara. At about 12.30 P.M. the accused came there while driving Scooter No. HP-39A-0431 and jumped `Naka' and fled towards Banoi. PW-1 sent a wireless massage to Mohinder Singh, S.H.O. (PW-12) police Station, Kangra about the fleeing of the accused, as aforesaid. PW-12 at the time of receipt of wireless massage, alongwith A.S.I. Onkar Singh (PW-11), Incharge police post Gaggal and H.C. Kuldip Singh (PW-2), was inspecting the site of plane crash at Gaggal Airport. He, alongwith the police party, proceeded towards Banoi. PW-12 saw the aforesaid Scooter being driven by the accused coming from Kaliara side. The accused stopped the Scooter at Banoi, took out a packet from its dicky and entered into his shop where he placed the said packet in the counter. In the meanwhile, PW-1 and also reached there. PW-12 followed the accused and checked the packet placed in the counter by the accused. The packet contained another plastic packet which contained Charas in the shape of Betties. Mohinder Singh, Pradhan of the Panchayat (PW-3), Satish Kumar, a neighboring shop keeper and Sumit Kumara photographer (PW-5) were called to the shop through H.C. Kuldip Singh (PW-2). In the presence of the said witnesses, the Charas was weighted and was found 700 grams. The entire proceedings were photographed by PW-5 and the photographs are Exts. PW-5/A and PW-5/B and then negatives are Ext. PW 5/C and PW 5/D. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken out of the recovered Charas and the samples and the bulk Charas were made into separate parcels and sealed with seal M. The seal after use was entrusted to Pw-3 vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. The Scooter was also taken in possession vide memo Ext. PW 5/C and PW 5/D. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken out of the recovered Charas and the samples and the bulk Charas were made into separate parcels and sealed with seal M. The seal after use was entrusted to Pw-3 vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. The Scooter was also taken in possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. Ruka Ext. PW-12/A was prepared by PW-12 and sent to the police Station whereupon F.I.R. Ext PW-10/A came into being at Police Station, Kangra. One of the samples was sent for chemical analysis and vide report Ext. PW-13/A the Chemical Examiner H P. C.T.L. Kandaghat opined that the sample was that of Charas. A chargesheet was accordingly summed against the accused who came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra on a charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act 3. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P C. wherein he denied the prosecution case as a whole except that he got his aforesaid Scooter released and claimed that it was taken away by the police forcibly. He has further claimed that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any defence evidence. 4. On consideration of the material on record, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid. Being agreed, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent - State and have also gone through the records. 6. The prosecution story regarding recovery of Charas as already set out hereinabove is by and large supported by the official witnesses, namely, ASP J.P. Singh (PW-1), HC Kuldip Singh (PW-2) and SI Mohinder Singh (PW-12). The official witnesses are as competent witnesses as others but as a rule of prudence their statements have to be read with caution. In case infirmities going to the root of the case or improbabilities qua material version are noticed in their evidence, the case cannot succeed on their testimony. 7. The official witnesses are as competent witnesses as others but as a rule of prudence their statements have to be read with caution. In case infirmities going to the root of the case or improbabilities qua material version are noticed in their evidence, the case cannot succeed on their testimony. 7. The prosecution though has examined Panchayat Pradhan Mohinder Singh (PW-3) and a shopkeeper Satish Kumar (PW-4) but, according to the prosecution, they are not the witnesses of the search and recovery of the Charas but were admittedly joined in the investigation after recovery of the Charas, to witness the process of weighing the recovered Charas, taking samples and sealing the case property. They were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. They have deposed that Charas was weighed in their presence and was found about 700 grams. They admitted the signing of the sample packets but denied drawl of sample of the Charas in their presence. They are admittedly not witnesses of the search and recovery of contraband. Thus there is no independent witness to support the version of the official witnesses about the search and recovery of Charas. The evidence of the aforesaid police officials though supports the version regarding separating of samples and sealing of the case property but PW-3 and PW-4 do not corroborate the version of the official witnesses in this regard. Thus, there is no independent evidence to corroborate the version of the official witnesses regarding drawl of sample and sealing of the case property which make it all the more necessary to appreciate the testimony of the official witnesses with due are and caution. When examined against this background, the statements of the official witnesses are not reliable and confidence inspiring but are infirm, inconsistent and improbable. 8. It is admitted case of the prosecution that after the alleged search, seizure and sealing the case property including samples, Ruka Ext. PW 12/A dated 10.6.2002 at 3.15 p.m. and NCB form prepared by PW-12 Ext. PW 12/B were sent to police Station through HC Kuldip Chand (PW-2) who delivered the Ruka Ext. PW 12/A to SI Prem Chand (PW-10) who at that time was officiating as the SHO. The Ruka was admittedly received by him at the police Station at 4. p.m. and he recorded formal FIR Ext. PW 10/A on the basis of Ruka Ext. PW 12/A. As per the contents of Ext. PW 12/A to SI Prem Chand (PW-10) who at that time was officiating as the SHO. The Ruka was admittedly received by him at the police Station at 4. p.m. and he recorded formal FIR Ext. PW 10/A on the basis of Ruka Ext. PW 12/A. As per the contents of Ext. PW 10/A the information about the crime was received at the police Station at 4 p.m. Thus, as per the prosecution and its witnesses Ruka Ext. PW 12/A was delivered at the police Station by PW-2 at 4 p.m. on 10.6.2002. The case property alongwith NCB form was sent alongwith the Ruka, therefore, invariably reached at the police Station at 4 p.m. Evidence of HC Karam Pal Singh (PW-6) confirms this conclusion when he states that the case property and NCB from were received by him at the police Station on 10.5.2002 at 4 p.m. through PW-2. Thus, what is sought to be established on record is that case property and NCB form were received by him at the police Station Kangra by PW-2 at 4 P.m. on 10.6.2002. 9. It is version of the prosecution itself that after recovery of the Charas photographs Exts. PW 5/A and PW 5/B of the independent witness, PW-1, the accused and the recovered Charas were got prepared from Summit Kumar(PW-5) and negatives of such photographs are Exts. PW 5/C and PW 5/D. These photographs admittedly show a few persons with the contraband placed on the scale. As per the unchallenged versions of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 these photographs were taken around 5 or 6 p.m. Thus, the taking of these photographs is not only futile exercise of uncalled for show of but also proves that the official witnesses are not truthful witnesses for the simple reason that the case property which was being exhibited and displayed on the spot at 5 or 6 p.m. could not be at the police Station at 4. p.m. on the same day as the prosecution in its wisdom had tried to prove. The situation, renders the evidence of the official witnesses not only suspicious and unreliable but tainted. 10. The above factual findings further reveal that there had been deliberate non-compliance of the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. p.m. on the same day as the prosecution in its wisdom had tried to prove. The situation, renders the evidence of the official witnesses not only suspicious and unreliable but tainted. 10. The above factual findings further reveal that there had been deliberate non-compliance of the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. It is case of the prosecution itself that PW-10, the officiating SHO of the concerned police Station, was given the Ruka by PW-2 at the police Station at 4 p.m. However, it is also not in dispute that the case property was never produced before him as required under Section 55 of the NDPS Act. Though, the provisions of Section 55 are directory and in the ordinary circumstances non-compliance thereof will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but in this case the non-compliance is not in the ordinary course but for the reason that the case property was not sent to the police station as per the version of the prosecution but it was kept back on the spot illegally and attempt has been made to camouflage the truth by cooked up version. The non-compliance of these provisions thus adversely effects the credibility of the official witnesses and render their versions utterly unreliable. 11. It is sought to be proved that the Investigating Officer acting promptly sent NCB form Ext. PW 12/B alongwith case property and Ruka through PW-2 who delivered the NCB from and case property to PW-6 at 4 p.m. After registration of FIR Ext PW 10/A at 4 p.m, PW-2 took the case file back to the Investigating Officer (PW-12) who at about 4 p.m. had handed over the investigation to ASI Onkar Singh (PW-11). PW-6 claims that the articles deposited with him, while in his custody, were not tampered with by any one. In the aforesaid circumstance PW-12 had no occasion to make any addition in the contents of the NCB form Ext. FW-/B nor it is in evidence in any form that after deposit of the NCB form he made any additions thereto. It is admitted case of the prosecution that NCB form was prepared and deposited before PW-12 could know the FIR number. FW-/B nor it is in evidence in any form that after deposit of the NCB form he made any additions thereto. It is admitted case of the prosecution that NCB form was prepared and deposited before PW-12 could know the FIR number. However, NCB form contains the FIR number, date and particulars of penal provisions and there is no explanation as to how these particulars unknown to PW-12 till the NCB from had been deposited in the safe custody came to be mentioned in such from. The existence of the FIR number etc. on NCB form is indicative of the fact that PW-12 entered those particulars therein after it had been deposited in the safe custody or this document was not prepared at the time and place as claimed by the prosecution. In either case the only permissible inference, more so in view of the above facts, is that the t investigation in the case was not fair. 12. In the ordinary circumstances, the Court does not consider a lapse in producing the seal used for sealing the case property as fatal to the case if it is otherwise satisfied of the correctness of the prosecution version on the basis of reliable and confidence inspiring evidence. However, in a case as in hand wherein `the investigation is not found fair, the question whether the seal used for sealing the case property remained in such custody that none was likely to tamper with the case property and the samples assumes importance. 13. As per the contents of the seizure Memo. Ext. PW 1/A the seal `M' used by the Investigating Officer for sealing the case property and the samples, was handed over to PW-3. PW-1 who states about the search, seizure etc. as a whole, has not stated as to with whom the seal remained after use. According to PW-2 the seal after use was handed over to PW-3. So is stated by the investigating Officer (PW-12). In his cross-examination, PW-12 states that the seal which was handed over by him to PW-3 after use was ring shaped, made of silver. Similar ring of silver he was putting on when examined in the Court. According to PW-2 the seal after use was handed over to PW-3. So is stated by the investigating Officer (PW-12). In his cross-examination, PW-12 states that the seal which was handed over by him to PW-3 after use was ring shaped, made of silver. Similar ring of silver he was putting on when examined in the Court. Though he claims that the ring he was having at that time was a different ring but it is beyond comprehension that he possesses more than one silver ring of the same metal and design for personal and official uses as and when so required. His statement and that of his subordinate PW-2 on this count are belied by the evidence of PW-3 who has specifically stated that no seal was entrusted to him or used in his presence for sealing the case property. This is yet another reason to reject their testimony as untrue. 14. There is yet another circumstance which is suggestive of tampering with the case property. As per the contents of the seizure Memo. Ext. PW 1/A, the Charas when recovered was in a red polythene bag and after weighing etc. the bulk Charas was kept in the same bag and was sealed. When the bulk Charas was produced in the Court during recording of the statement of PW-1 he admitted that the Charas so produced was in a yellow and red colour bag and further states that at the time of his examination he was not shown that bag in the Court meaning thereby that the Charas produced in the court was in a bag other than the bag in which it was sealed. Evidently a case of tampering with the case property. 15. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that there is no cogent, reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence on record to prove the charge against the accused. Therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 16. As a result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge against him. The accused, who is in jail undergoing the term of imprisonment, be set at liberty forthwith. Fine, if recovered, be refunded to him.