JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) against the judgment dated 7.7.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, whereby the accused has been convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.3.2002 a Police party consisting of SI Shamsher Singh (PW-9), HC Karam Chand (PW-3), HHC Shakti Chand and Constable Rattan Chand was on patrol duty in Talai Bazaar. At about 8.15 a.m., PW-9 received a secret information that a person having a drum (Dholki) slung on his shoulder was engaged in selling Charas near Saryali Bridge. Such information Ext.PW-5/A was reduced into writing by PW-9 and was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur through HHC Shakti Chand. PW-9 formed a raiding party in which PW-3, Constable Rattan Chand and two independent witnesses, namely Hem Raj (PW-1) and Bal Krishan were associated. The raiding party so formed proceeded towards Saryali Bridge where they found a person i.e. the accused having a drum slung on his shoulder and having a bag on his other shoulder. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape but was apprehended by the members of the raiding party. On enquiry, he disclosed his particulars. He was given the option Ext.PW-1/A of getting himself searched before a Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer or by PW-9. The accused agreed to be searched by PW-9 vide memo Ext.PW-1/B. The police officials including PW-9 offered themselves to be searched by the accused and they were searched by the accused but nothing incriminating was found on the person of PW-9, PW-3 and Constable Rattan Chand vide memo Ext.PW-1/C. Thereafter, PW-9 searched the bag of the accused which contained some clothes and Charas packed in polythene paper. Presence of Bhajan Lal (PW-2) was then procured by PW-9 through PW-3 and the Charas was weighed by PW-2 and was found 480 grams. Presence of Bhajan Lal (PW-2) was then procured by PW-9 through PW-3 and the Charas was weighed by PW-2 and was found 480 grams. Two samples of 10 grams each were drawn from the Charas so recovered and the samples and the remaining Charas were made into three parcels which were sealed with seal A and recovery memo Ext.PW-1/D about the recovery, sampling and seizure was prepared. The seal used for sealing the case property was handed over to PW-1 vide receipt Ext.PW-1/E. PW-9 prepared ruka Ext.PW-3/A which was sent to Police Station, Talai through Constable Rattan Chand for registration of a case and, as a consequence, FIR Ext.PW-6/A was recorded at the Police Station. The accused was arrested after disclosing the grounds of his arrest vide memo Ext.PW-3/B. The case property was then taken to the Police Station and deposited in the Malkhana with MHC Vipan Kumar (PW-7) who on 27.3.2002 sent one sample packet of the Charas to Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat through Constable Kartar Singh (PW-8) alongwith relevant form. On analysis of the sample, the Chemcial Examiner found the contents of the sample to be Charas vide his report Ext.PX. A charge-sheet was submitted against the accused, who came to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on a charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. 3. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case by the police in connivance with Hem Raj and Bhajan Lal The accused however, did not lead any defence evidence. 4. On appreciation of the material on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the accused. 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 learned counsel for the accused assailed the impugned conviction and sentence on the following grounds : (I) that the evidence led by the prosecution is of highly suspicious nature and not reliable; and (II) that the link evidence is missing. GROUND NO. I : 7. 6. The learned counsel for the accused assailed the impugned conviction and sentence on the following grounds : (I) that the evidence led by the prosecution is of highly suspicious nature and not reliable; and (II) that the link evidence is missing. GROUND NO. I : 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the material on record suggests that this case has been engineered against the accused with a view to let off some real culprit in the case that is why there are contradictions in the evidence of the material witnesses. Such contradictions, according to the learned counsel, are that according to the prosecution secret information was received by the SHO while he was on patrol duty in the Bazaar whereas it can be inferred from the statement of PW-3 that it was after receipt of the alleged information at the Police Station that the SHO proceeded to the spot. Secondly, the FIR in the case admittedly stood registered at 9.40 a.m. on 26.3.2002 whereas according to PW-3, he left the site of alleged recovery at about 10.30 a.m. to bring PW-2 to the spot with the scale and weights to weigh the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused and thereafter and sampling etc. was done. It was thereafter that Ruka Ext.PW-3/A was sent for registration of the case as is evident from the contents of the Ruka itself. The FIR, however, is shown to have been recorded at 9.45 a.m. which is improbable. These contradictions, according to the learned counsel, render the prosecution version highly suspicious. 8. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General contended that minor contradictions of the nature pointed out by the defence are of no consequence as they do not go to the root of the case. 9. It is case of the prosecution that the secret information was received by PW-9 at about 8.15 a.m. while alongwith other police officials he was on patrol duty in Talai Bazaar. However, in his cross-examination PW-3, a police official of the rank of an Investigator, has stated that "SHO had informed that he had received secret information and asked me to accompany him....... The police party had left Police Station at 7.20 a.m. on 26.3.2002". However, in his cross-examination PW-3, a police official of the rank of an Investigator, has stated that "SHO had informed that he had received secret information and asked me to accompany him....... The police party had left Police Station at 7.20 a.m. on 26.3.2002". Form the manner in which the statement is recorded, it appears that PW-9 had asked PW-3 to accompany him from Police Station after receipt of the secret information. If so, the version that secret information was received when the police party (which as a whole proceeded to the place of alleged recovery) was initially in the Bazaar is rendered suspicious. 10. It is further unambiguous and specific version of PW-3 that he had gone to call PW-2 to the spot at about 10.30 a.m. and PW-2 reached at the spot at about 11.00 a.m. It is admitted case of the prosecution that the recovered Charas was weighed by PW-2 after reaching the spot and thereafter sampling etc. was done. The Ruka as per its contents was evidently prepared after the arrival of PW-2 on the spot, but it mentions the time of its preparation as 9.15 a.m. and FIR was recovered at 9.45 a.m. which is improbable in view of the above discussed statement of PW-3. 11. Yet another improbability surfaces in view of the prosecution evidence. PW-1 is the only independent witness examined by the prosecution. He is specific in his statement that Shakti Singh, a police official, was also accompanying the SHO (PW-9) when he was joined as a witness in raiding party. He is specific in his version that four police officials were then accompanying the SHO and as per the prosecution and PW-1 Shakti Singh was one of them. According to the prosecution written information Ext.PW-5/A after having been recorded, was given to Shakti Singh for being taken to the Superintendent of Police concerned. Said Shakti Singh took Ext.PW-5/A to Superintendent of Police who endorsed "seen" thereon. The time of this endorsement as given by the Superintendent of Police is 11.30 a.m. which means the Superintendent of Police had seen information Ext.PW-5/A at 11.30 a.m. on 26.3.2002. It is admitted case of PW-3 and PW-9 that proceedings on the spot continued for 3 to 4 hours. PW-2 states that when he reached on the spot four police officials were present there. It is admitted case of PW-3 and PW-9 that proceedings on the spot continued for 3 to 4 hours. PW-2 states that when he reached on the spot four police officials were present there. There is no evidence that in the meanwhile Shakti Singh had left to handover Ext.PW-5/A to the Superintendent of Police and some other police official had joined the party. It is thus implicit in the version of PW-2 that when he reached on the spot to weigh the Charas Shakti Singh was present there. It is admitted by PW-1 that after completion of investigation on the spot, all the named police officials include Shakti Singh left for Police Station. It means that Shakti Singh was on the spot till the completion of the investigation on the spot, which in view of the statements of PW-3 and PW-9, as stated above, was completed around 12 Oclock or thereafter. If so, it is improbable that information Ext.PW-5/A was sent to the Superintendent of Police at the time and in the manner as sought to be made out by the prosecution. Be it stated that the suggested defence of the accused is that the case had been engineered against him falsely by PW-1, PW-3, Shakti Singh and other police officials. Said Shakti Singh has not been examined to state about the part played by him during investigation. Therefore, what emerges from the record, as aforesaid, renders the prosecution version about the time of alleged recovery and sending of information to the Superintendent of Police and recording of the FIR highly suspicious. 12. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that PW-9 required ASI Sher Singh (PW-6) to be present on the spot for further investigation vide contents of Ruka Ext.PW-3/A. PW-6 after recording the FIR admittedly proceeded to the spot. It is clearly and unambiguously admitted by him that when he reached on the spot, the investigation was not complete but he did not carry out any investigation in the case. There is no explanation as to why further investigation was not entrusted to him and if the investigation was not to be entrusted to him why he was called to and stayed on the spot till the investigation was complete. 13. In view of the above, the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be said natural, reliable and confidence inspiring, as was contended for the accused. 13. In view of the above, the evidence led by the prosecution cannot be said natural, reliable and confidence inspiring, as was contended for the accused. GROUND NO. II : 14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that there is in fact no link evidence in this case. Elaborating the contention, the learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence that NCB form was prepared at the spot or any specimen of the seal used for sealing the case property was even taken and deposited in safe custody or was sent to the Laboratory alongwith the sample. Therefore, the impugned conviction is bad in law and cannot be sustained. 15. The learned Deputy Advocate General had submitted that the quantity of the recovered contraband is incapable of being procured to falsely implicate the accused and police had no motive to engineer a case against the accused. Therefore, in view of the statements of HC Vipan Kumar (PW-7), HC Kartar Singh (PW-8) and the contents of report of the Chemical Examiner Ext.PX, the link evidence in the case is complete. 16. In Sandeep Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003(1) Crimes 335, this Court while dealing with the importance of link evidence held as under: "It may be pointed out that link evidence with reference to any psychotropic or narcotic substance seized when found in unlawful possession, is the evidence which provides link in the evidence from the state of taking the sample till its examination by the Chemical Examiner. This evidence is very material to connect the sample with the remaining case property. The prosecution is duty bound to lead link evidence to prove that the articles/ samples sent to the Chemical Examiner were the same which were recovered/were samples of the contraband recovered from the accused and the sample(s) analysed by the Chemical Examiner is in fact of the bulk of the contraband recovered from the accused. In the absence of such evidence where accused has denied recovery of the contraband from his possession or at his instance, he cannot be convicted for possession thereof. In the absence of such evidence where accused has denied recovery of the contraband from his possession or at his instance, he cannot be convicted for possession thereof. In State of H.P. v. Gurdeep Lal and another, Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 2000, decided on 14.3.2002, Amar Singh v. State of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1998 decided on 22.3.2002 and Titu Singh v. State of H.P., 2003 (2) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) 136, this Court took similar view as in Sandeep Kumars case (supra)." 17. In Ombir Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.A. No. 313 of 2004, this Court while dealing with the subject held as tinder: "The correct and authentic procedure in fact is to take specimen sample of the seal(s) used for sealing the case property and the sample immediately after the sealing is done in the presence of the witnesses. A specimen sample so taken in the presence of witnesses will decidedly be more authentic for comparison with the seal impressions on the sealed article." 18. It is in view of the above settled position in law that the submissions made for the parties are required to be examined. 19. It is nowhere in the statement of PW-9 that after having sealed the samples and the bulk Charas on the spot he took required number of specimen impressions of the seal used for sealing the case property in the presence of the witnesses of seizure memo or any other set of witnesses or deposited such specimen impressions with the case property in the Malkhana. It is also not in his statement that he filled-in the NCB form or any other identical form regarding the case property on the spot. Though he states that he deposited the case property and the requisite form in the Malkhana on 26.3.2002 but his statement on this count is belied by the statement of PW-7 who has not stated about the depositing of any form with the case property and also by the contents of NCRB form which bears the date of its preparation, as 27.3.2002. Evidently, a document dated 273.2002 cannot be said to have been kept in safe custody day before, i.e. 26.3.2002. 20. PW-7, the then MHC, has also not stated that any NCB or NCRB form or specimen impression of seal used for sealing the case property was ever deposited with him by PW-9. Evidently, a document dated 273.2002 cannot be said to have been kept in safe custody day before, i.e. 26.3.2002. 20. PW-7, the then MHC, has also not stated that any NCB or NCRB form or specimen impression of seal used for sealing the case property was ever deposited with him by PW-9. Similarly, PW-8 who took the sample to CTL Kandaghat has not stated that any specimen seal impression was handed over to him alongwith the sample for delivery in CTL Kandaghat. Even PW-1 and PW-3, the witnesses of the seizure have not stated that NCB /NCRB forms were filled or specimen seal impressions of the seal used for sealing the case property were ever taken by PW-9. Thus there is no evidence that requisite specimen seal impressions were taken and preserved and sent to CTL for the purpose of comparison with the seal impressions on the sample. There is also no evidence to prove that requisite NCB or NCRB form was prepared on the spot or deposited in the Malkhana. Whatever form was sent to CTL was prepared on the date when sample is alleged to have been sent to the Laboratory. Thus, the link evidence to connect the recovered stuff with the sample analysed in the CTL is altogether missing. 21. In view of the conclusions arrived herein above the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. 22. As a result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge against him. 23. The accused, who is presently in jail undergoing the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him, be set at liberty forthwith/if not required to be detained in custody under any other process of law. Fine, if recovered, be refunded to him. Appeal allowed. -