Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, "the Code" hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Sirohi (for Short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Special Case No. 61/1999, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the NDPS Act") and sentenced each of them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. One lac, in default of payment of fine further to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this appeal, are that on 12.07.1999, PW. 14 Himmat Dan, Station House Officer, Police Station, Shivganj received a secret information that a truck is carrying contraband poppy straw. The information was taken down in writing in Roznamcha vide Exhibit P-26 and sent to the immediate superior officer to him. Thereafter a Nakabandi was held at the National Highway No. 14. At about 6:00 PM, a truck bearing No. RJ 16-G-0392 approached on the side of Sumerpur, which was got stopped by the police party headed by PW. 14 Himmat Dan. Two persons were found sitting in the cabin of the said truck and subsequently they were identified as the appellants herein. The appellants are said to be the driver and cleaner of the truck. The said truck was searched and it was found carrying 69 bags of poppy straw, total weighing 2228 kgs. PW. 14 seized the poppy straw Article A/1 to Article A/69 vide Exhibit P-11. The appellants were arrested and after usual investigation, the police filed Challan against the appellants and one Budha Ram, the owner of the truck, for the offence noticed above. The trial Court framed charge, to which the appellant denied. The prosecution produced 16 witnesses and the documents Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-45. The appellants made statement under Section 313 of the Code and denied the allegation. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and accordingly both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as noticed above. The appellants made statement under Section 313 of the Code and denied the allegation. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and accordingly both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as noticed above. However, co-accused Budha Ram, the owner of the truck in question, was acquitted of the charge. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor for the State; carefully gone through the Judgment and order impugned as also the record of the trial Court. I have also scrutinized, scanned and evaluated the evidence on record. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the samples of the contraband poppy straw alleged to have been seized were not the same which were sent for chemical analysis to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, on the strength that the article contraband poppy straw seized vide Exhibit P-11, Articles A-1 to A-69, were recorded its weight and each of the bag of poppy straw alleged to have been seized on the spot bear the weight, which has been recorded in the seizure memo Exhibit P-11 have been deposited with the Malkhana Incharge with same weight which shows that no samples were taken therefrom as had the samples been taken then the weight of material poppy straw would have been reduced to the extent of weight of samples. Vide Exhibit P-11, PW. Vide Exhibit P-11, PW. 14 Himmat Dan, the seizure officer, recovered the poppy straw as follows: A-1 30 kg, A-2 20 Kg, A-3 16 Kg, A-4 36 Kg, A-5 29 Kg, A-6 30 Kg, A-7 47 Kg, A-8 33 Kg, A-9 55 Kg, A-10 40 Kg, A-11 34 Kg, A-12 50 Kg, A-13 30 Kg, A-14 39 Kg, A-15 30 Kg, A-16 18 Kg, A-17 28 Kg, A-18 19 Kg, A-19 27 Kg, A-20 36 Kg, A-21 38 Kg, A-22 25 Kg, A-23 30 Kg, A-24 39 Kg, A-25 30 Kg, A-26 30 Kg, A-27 32 Kg, A-28 39 Kg, A-29 23 Kg, A-30 35 Kg, A-31 28 Kg, A-32 32 Kg, A-33 32 Kg, A-34 33 Kg, A-35 55 Kg, A-36 38 Kg, A-37 38 Kg, A-38 30 Kg, A-39 37 Kg, A-40 25 Kg, A-41 45 Kg, A-42 32 Kg, A-43 26 Kg, A-44 32 Kg, A-45 31 Kg, A-46 26 Kg, A-47 22 Kg, A-48 32 Kg, A-49 28 Kg, A-50 44 Kg, A-51 30 Kg, A-52 45 Kg, A-53 35 Kg, A-54 20 Kg, A-55 40 Kg, A-56 33 Kg, A-57 32 Kg, A-58 38 Kg, A-59 38 Kg, A-60 37 Kg, A-61 29 Kg, A-62 39 Kg, A-63 22 Kg, A-64 31 Kg, A-65 29 Kg, A-66 25 Kg, A-67 30 Kg, A-68 22 Kg, A-69 17 Kg. 5. PW. 14 Himmat Dan, the station House Officer, Police Station, Shivganj, stated that from each bag, two samples of 250 grams each were taken and thereafter the packets were re-sealed and deposited in the Malkhana vide Exhibit P-24. PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh is the Malkhana Incharge, who received the Articles A-1 to A-69 and recorded in the Malkhana Register Exhibit P-24. In Exhibit 24, the weight of each packed deposited by PW. 14 with PW. 11 has been reduced to writing. The weight recorded in the Malkhana Register of the contraband poppy straw seized on the spot and the weight mentioned in the seizure memo Exhibit P-11 is verbatim the same and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, no samples were taken from the contraband poppy straw seized vide Exhibit P-11 and the sample which were alleged to have been sent to FSL were not of the contraband poppy straw seized by PW. 14 Vide Exhibit P-11. Learned Counsel further submits that the seizure officer PW. 14 as also PW. 14 Vide Exhibit P-11. Learned Counsel further submits that the seizure officer PW. 14 as also PW. 11 have stated that the contraband poppy straw recovered and the sample taken were sealed by using the seal of Police Station, Eranpura (Sirohi) whereas PW. 5 Atma Ram, who carried the samples to FSL for chemical analysis has stated that the samples which he carried to FSL were bearing the seal of Police Station, Shivganj. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, this shows that the samples sent to FSL for chemical analysis were not of the contraband poppy straw seized by PW. 14 vide Exhibit P-11 and, therefore, the FSL report Exhibit P-9 do not represent the samples taken from the appellants and sealed by using the seal of Police Station, "Eranpura" and as such the FSL report Exhibit P-9 cannot be read against the appellants. Learned Counsel further contended that the specimen seal was not deposited in the Malkhana, which is evident from the Malkhana Register Exhibit P-24, as also from the statement of PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh, and therefore, he further submits that there is no evidence that the articles alleged to have been seized by PW. 14 Himmat Dan vide Exhibit P-11 by affixing the seal of Police Station, Eranpura were ever re-sealed by the concerned Station House Officer with the seal of Police Station, Shivganj and, therefore, there is totally non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. Learned Counsel for the appellants furthers submits that there is also total non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act as the complete report disclosing the arrest and seizure were never sent with all other particulars to the immediate superior officer by PW. 14. In this respect, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (1) Crimes 235 (SC). 6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the Judgment and order impugned and submitted that the seizure of the contraband poppy straw has been proved by PW. 14 Himmat Dan. He has also submitted that the contraband poppy straw were sealed on the spot by affixing the seal of Police Station, Eranpura (Sirohi), however, the learned Public Prosecutor has failed to show that any Police Station by the name of Eranpura exists in the area. 14 Himmat Dan. He has also submitted that the contraband poppy straw were sealed on the spot by affixing the seal of Police Station, Eranpura (Sirohi), however, the learned Public Prosecutor has failed to show that any Police Station by the name of Eranpura exists in the area. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that before resumption of Jagirs, there was the Police Station, Eranpura, however, subsequently, it has been changed as Police Station, Shivganj and, therefore, the seals of Police Station, Eranpura and Police Station, Shivganj is one and the same. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for parties. 8. PW. 14 Himmat Dan, at the relevant time, was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Shivganj, who is the seizing officer and stated that on 12.07.1999, he was posted as the Station House Officer, Police Station, Shivganj. At about 4:00/5:00 in the evening, he received a telephonic information that the truck bearing No. RJ 16-G-0392 is transporting poppy straw and coming from Sanderao side and going towards Sirohi or Jalore. The information was recorded in the Roznamcha vide Exhibit P-26. The said information was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, through PW. 14 Constable Jagdish Chandra, vide Exhibit P-27. He has proved the Roznamcha Exhibit P-28 and Exhibit P-29 by which Constable Jagidish Chandra carried the information to the higher officer i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. He further stated that he held the Nakabandi. At about 6:00 PM, the truck noticed above came and two persons were found sitting in the cabin of the truck and they were subsequently identified as appellants No. 1 and 2 as driver and cleaner, respectively, of the said truck. They were served with a notice Exhibit P-10. After obtaining their consent purported to under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the truck was searched and 69 bags containing poppy straw weighing 2228 kgs were seized and recovered. All the 69 bags marked A/1 to A/69 were weighed and the weight was recorded in the seizure memo Exhibit P-11. Thereafter two samples of 250 grams each were taken from articles A/1 to A/69 i.e. all the 69 bags containing poppy straw and they were marked as A/1 to A/69, samples were marked B/1 to B/69 and controlled samples were marked C/1 to C/69. He has proved the seizure memo. Thereafter two samples of 250 grams each were taken from articles A/1 to A/69 i.e. all the 69 bags containing poppy straw and they were marked as A/1 to A/69, samples were marked B/1 to B/69 and controlled samples were marked C/1 to C/69. He has proved the seizure memo. He further stated that the seized articles were deposited with the Malkhana Incharge. He has also proved the Articles A/1 to A/69 which were produced in the Court. Article A/1 to A/69 do not bear the signatures either of the seizure officer PW. 14, or of the appellants or of any of the witnesses to the seizure. He further stated that Articles A/1 to A/69 were sealed with the seal of Police Station, Eranpura. He also stated that the samples were also sealed with the seal of Police Station, Eranpura. 9. PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh is the Malkhana Incharge. The has stated that he was the Head Constable and Malkhana Incharge on the relevant day i.e., 12.07.1999. He received 207 bags i.e., 69 packets containing poppy straw, 69 bags of samples and 69 bags of controlled sample in the sealed condition and recorded the same in the Malkhana Register Exhibit P-24. He further stated that the samples were sent vide Exhibit P-5 through PW. 5 Constable Atma Ram to be carried to FSL for chemical analysis. The samples were deposited by PW. 5 with the FSL vide receipt Exhibit P-8. He clearly admitted that in Exhibit P-24, there is no mention of the seal by which the articles were seized. However, he stated that the samples were sealed with the seal of a police station. He further stated that a specimen seal, by which the contraband poppy straw were seized had not been deposited in the Malkhana. 10. PW. 5 Atma Ram has stated that on 14.07.1999, he was posted as a Constable at Police Station, Shivganj. The Malkhana Incharge handed over him 69 sealed packets vide Road Certificate Exhibit P-6 and the letter to carry the samples to the Office of the superintendent of Police, Sirohi. He took the same and handed over the samples to PW. 2 Dharam Singh vide Exhibit P-5 and the receipt of which was issued vide Exhibit P-7. The Malkhana Incharge handed over him 69 sealed packets vide Road Certificate Exhibit P-6 and the letter to carry the samples to the Office of the superintendent of Police, Sirohi. He took the same and handed over the samples to PW. 2 Dharam Singh vide Exhibit P-5 and the receipt of which was issued vide Exhibit P-7. He again collected the samples of the contraband poppy straw to be carried to FSL, Jaipur vide Exhibit P-7 and deposited the same to FSL vide Exhibit P-8. He stated that the sample packets were having the seal of Police Station, Shivganj and each packet had one seal of Police Station, Shivganj. From the statement of PW. 5, it is clear that the samples which he carried to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi and thereafter to FSL, Jaipur vide Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit P-7 were having the seal of Police Station, Shivganj and not the seal of Police Station, Eranpura (Sirohi). The prosecution has failed to lead any evidence that after seizure of the contraband poppy straw by affixing the seal of Police Station, Eranpura, the SHO, Police Station, Shivganj, ever re-sealed the same by using the seal of Police Station, Shivganj. On the contrary, the seizure officer PW. 14 Himmat Dan, in his statement, consistently stated that he had affixed the seal of Police Station, Eranpura on the samples, specimen samples as also on the controlled samples. Neither the specimen seal had been deposited in the Malkhana nor it was produced to prove that the samples which reached the FSL for chemical analysis, were affixed with the seal of Police Station. Eranpura. On the contrary, it is the prosecution case that the samples which PW. 5 Atma Ram carried to FSL were having the seal of Police Station, Shivganj. 11. More so, the contraband Articles A/1 to A/69, in as many as 69 packets, were bearing the weight as mentioned in Exhibit P-11. Without there being any reduction in the weight on account of taking samples, with the same weight, they were deposited with the Malkhana Incharge PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh vide Exhibit P-24. 11. More so, the contraband Articles A/1 to A/69, in as many as 69 packets, were bearing the weight as mentioned in Exhibit P-11. Without there being any reduction in the weight on account of taking samples, with the same weight, they were deposited with the Malkhana Incharge PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh vide Exhibit P-24. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the prosecution that as to how the articles A/1 to A/69 remained with the same weight after taking out two samples of 250 grams each from bag were deposited with the Malkhana with the same weight which was recovered vide Exhibit P-11. Thus, the link evidence with regard to taking the samples from the contraband poppy straw seized vide Exhibit P-11, Articles A/1 to A/69 is missing. 12. The prosecution case further creates a doubt as to the sealing of the contraband poppy straw and the samples alleged to have been taken therefrom. The seizure officer PW. 14 Himmat Dan says that it bears the seal of Police Station, Eranpura (Sirohi) which admittedly did not exist for last many years; whereas PW. 5 Atma Ram stated that he carried the samples to the FSL bearing the seal of Police Station, Shivganj. In the circumstances, therefore, there is substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants that the samples which were sent to FSL through PW. 5 were not the same which were taken from the contraband poppy straw seized vide Exhibit P-11 and deposited in the Malkhana vide Exhibit P-24. Even the Malkhana Incharge PW. 11 Bhanwar Singh also did not state that the samples deposited with him were sealed with the seal of Police Station, Eranpura. He also stated that it was bearing the seal of a police station, meaning thereby that the police station to which the case pertains and that is the Police Station, Shivganj. This find corroboration from the Statement of PW. 5 Atma Ram who carried the samples to FSL and stated that the samples were bearing the seal of Police Station, Shivganj. This shows that the samples were not taken on the spot or subsequently, the samples and the seals thereon were tampered with. 13. In Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that it is true that the provisions of Section 52 and 57 are directory. This shows that the samples were not taken on the spot or subsequently, the samples and the seals thereon were tampered with. 13. In Gurbax Singh vs. State of Haryana (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that it is true that the provisions of Section 52 and 57 are directory. Violation of these provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. However, the investigating officer cannot totally ignore these provisions and such failure will have a bearing on appreciation of evidence regarding arrest of the accused or seizure of the article. In the present case, investigating officer has admitted that the seal which was affixed on the muddamal material was handed over to the witness PW. 1 and was kept with him for 10 days. He has also admitted that the muddamal apparels were not re-sealed by the officer in charge of the police station as required under Section 55 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution has not led any evidence whether the Chemical Analyser received the sample with proper intact seals. It creates a doubt whether the same sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser. Further, it is apparent that the investigating officer has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 57 of the NDPS Act of making full report of all particulars of arrest and seizure to his immediate superior officer. The conduct of Panch witness is unusual as he offered himself to be a witness for search and seizure despite being not asked by the I.O., particularly when he did not know that the substance was poppy husk, but came to know about it only after being informed by the police. Further, it is the say of the Panch witness that Muddamal seal used by the PSI was a wooden seal. As against this, it is the say of PW. 2 SI/IO. That it was a brass seal. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and faulty investigation by the prosecution, in our view, it would not be safe to convict the appellant for a serious offence of possessing poppy husk. 14. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the seal which was used in sealing Articles A/1 toA/69, as also the samples Articles B/1 to B/69 and controlled Articles C/1 to C/69 was deposited in the Malkhana. 14. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the seal which was used in sealing Articles A/1 toA/69, as also the samples Articles B/1 to B/69 and controlled Articles C/1 to C/69 was deposited in the Malkhana. Neither the investigating officer stated that he deposited the seal which he used for sealing the contraband poppy straw with the Incharge of the Malkhana, nor the Malkhana Incharge has stated that any seal was deposited with him. On the contrary, PW . 11 Bhanwar Singh has categorically stated that the seal which was used on the contraband poppy straw was not deposited with him in the Malkhana. It is not the case of the prosecution that the seal which was used in sealing the material contraband and the samples was destroyed on the spot, but PW . 14 stated that it remained with him for 10 days. It is not the prosecution case that the report, as required under Section 57 of the NDPS Act, was ever sent to any superior officer. On the contrary, it is the prosecution case that no such report had ever been sent to the superior officer. Thus, there is total non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. Though the provisions of Sections 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act are directory in nature, but in the instant case, there is total non-compliance of these provisions coupled with the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the link evidence of sealing the samples. There are contradiction in the statements of PW . 14 Himmat Dan and PW . 5 Atma Ram regarding the seal used by the seizure officer. In absence of the link evidence, the FSL report Exhibit P-9 cannot be said to represent the samples taken from the material contraband poppy straw seized from the appellants and, therefore, on such evidence, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, I am of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The trial Court fell in error in not taking note of the serious contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case, as discussed here-in-above and the impugned Judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 10.16. The trial Court fell in error in not taking note of the serious contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case, as discussed here-in-above and the impugned Judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 10.16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order impugned dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Special Judge NDPS Cases, Sirohi in Special Case No. 61/1999 is hereby set aside. Appellants Chautha Ram and Hanuman Ram are acquitted of the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Both the appellants are in jail. They be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.