Judgment Indu Prabha Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted u/s. 20(B)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, (in short the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The story of the prosecution as has been stated in the written report of Raghubansh Kumar Bhanu, Jr. S.I. is that on 10.1.1997 while he was busy with some investigation and checking he got a confidential information that a person wearing military coloured jacket was carrying Ganja at Patel bus stand. He alongwith constable Prithvi Prasad went to Patel bus stand. There they found that the appellant was wearing military coloured jacket and also carrying a military coloured bag. He started fleeing away after seeing them. They apprehended him after chasing. He disclosed his name as Shesh Narayan Singh. His search was conducted in front of independent witnesses, namely, Asha Purna Singh (P.W.2) and Ramesh Kumar Singh (P.W.1) after following the rules. On search about 6 Kg. of Ganja covered in black colour polythene packet was recovered from his bag. A Seizure List was prepared for that and on which the witnesses put their signature. A copy of the Seizure List was also given to the appellant. On enquiry he could not show any letter or paper authorizing him to keep the Ganja contraband. The appellant thereafter, was taken into custody. On the statement of informant P.Ws. a case was registered u/s. 20(B) of the Act and also under sec. 48A of the Excise Act against appellant. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted and the court after holding the trial found the appellant guilty and sentenced him as has already been mentioned. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses and also exhibited some relevant documents to prove its case. P.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 were examined as independent witnesses, P.Ws. 1 & 2 were seizure list witnesses. They have not supported the case. However they have not denied to have given their signature but they have stated that their signature was obtained on a plain paper. They did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Another witness P.W.3 has also not supported the case and was also declared hostile. 5. They have not supported the case. However they have not denied to have given their signature but they have stated that their signature was obtained on a plain paper. They did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Another witness P.W.3 has also not supported the case and was also declared hostile. 5. P.W. 4 Prithivi Prasad has supported the case and has stated he alongwith the informant (P.W.5) on secret information went to Ara bus stand where the appellant was apprehended. However, he has stated that he alongwith his Attachee was brought to the police station where the Attachee was opened and 5/6 Kg. of Ganja was recovered. In cross examination he has also stated that he did not know how the informant got the confidential information about the Ganja. He has also stated that the appellant was not carrying Attachee when he was apprehended. The Attachee was 35 feet away from the place where he was apprehended. The public who were standing there informed them that the appellant had kept that Attachee and fled away. He did not see the appellant carrying the Attachee. He has also stated that he did not know from where the seizure list witnesses were brought. 6. The informant was examined as P.W. 5 who was Jr. S.I. He was at Jawahar Tola for enquiry and investigation of different applications filed. He got confidential information that a person was carrying Ganja and thus he went to the bus stand for verifying the same. The appellant who was wearing military coloured jacket started fleeing after seeing them but he was apprehended after chase. After apprehension in front of two independent witnesses his Attaches case was searched from which 6 kg. of Ganja was recovered. The seizure list was prepared on which the witnesses signed. The seizure list was also handed over to the appellant. He has also stated that sample was also sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory on which also he put his signature, for identification. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the independent witnesses have clearly stated that nothing has been recovered in their presence. As such there is nothing on record to show that there is witness to prove the time and recovery of Ganja as per prosecution story. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the independent witnesses have clearly stated that nothing has been recovered in their presence. As such there is nothing on record to show that there is witness to prove the time and recovery of Ganja as per prosecution story. It has also been submitted that the only constable has also not supported that the recovery of contraband made from the physical possession of the appellant rather he has stated that the Attachee case was kept at a place which was taken to the police station and at the police station the Attachee was opened from which the recovery of Ganja was made. He has also specifically stated that when the appellant was apprehended he was not having it and the attachee case was kept 35 feet away from where he was apprehended. He has further submitted that they did not see themselves that Attachee was kept by fleeing appellant. His statement contradicts the statement of P.W.5 the informant so even the police witnesses have given contradictory version about recovery and the same should not be relied upon. It was also submitted that in this case the prosecution could not prove whether the article which was recovered was actually Ganja or not. Neither any report was obtained or placed before the court nor the seized article was ever produced before the court to prove it. As such the prosecution has badly failed to prove the recovery of Ganja. He further submitted that provisions of Secs. 55 and 57 of the Act has not been complied with. There is nothing on record to show that the articles so seized was handed over to the Officer Incharge and has been kept in safe custody in Malkhana. He has further submitted that there is no entry in Malkhana register about this seizure and P.W.5 is silent about the article. He has relied on a decision reported in (2005) (4) East Cr.C. 398 (Pat) Lakhvindar Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar in which it was held that if the provisions of Secs. 55 and 57 of the Act is not complied with strictly it cast serious doubt on the proper handling of the case since these sections are mandatory and in such case the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. V/s. The State of Bihar in which it was held that if the provisions of Secs. 55 and 57 of the Act is not complied with strictly it cast serious doubt on the proper handling of the case since these sections are mandatory and in such case the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. The provision of these sections deals with for keeping the seized article in safe custody so as there could be no chance of adulteration in it for the purpose of false implication of an innocent person, as such it has been provided under this section that the material so seized shall be properly covered and sealed in presence of independent witnesses and should be handed to Malkhana of the police station immediately after the preparation of the seizure list. It also deals with preparation of sample which should also be sealed with the seal of the Officer Incharge of the police station alongwith the signature of the independent witnesses should be there so as there is no doubt that the sample which has been taken was from the same lot of the Ganja which was seized from an accused. sec. 57 deals with immediate information and report about the seizure and arrest to the Superior Officer which also prevents the I.O. from muddling for the investigation with ulterior motive. In such cases of offence under this Act severe punishment has been provided. As such court is also very particular about rigorous implication of sampling so as no innocent person could be falsely implicated and be put to such harassment at the hands of the investigating agency. On the strict compliance of sec. 57 of the Act the learned Counsel has relied on a decision reported in - Gurbax Singh V/s. State of Haryana in which it was held that if the provision Secs. 55 and 57 of the Act has not been complied and there is no evidence to support it, it would not be safe to convict the appellant for such a serious offence which is having such severe punishment. 8. In the case in hand even the fact of recovery of Ganja from the possession of the appellant has not been fully proved, two witnesses supporting the recovery have given contradictory version about the recovery of Ganja from the Attachee case. 8. In the case in hand even the fact of recovery of Ganja from the possession of the appellant has not been fully proved, two witnesses supporting the recovery have given contradictory version about the recovery of Ganja from the Attachee case. It appears that Ganja was also not properly weighed as P.W. 4 has stated that it was 5/6 Kg. where as P.W.5 has stated that it was 6 kg. of Ganja P.W.4 has also stated that the Attachee case was opened at the police station whereas P.W.5 says that it was open at the bus stand itself. Seizure list witnesses does not support the recovery in their presence. P.W.5 has not stated any thing about handing over of Ganja at Malkhana, as such provision of sec. 50 of the Act has not been fulfilled. I.O. has not been examined. No report from the Forensic Science Laboratory could be produced in court. Neither the seized Ganja was produced in court. He has also mentioned in his evidence about the compliance of Sec. 55 of the Act. There is nothing on the record to show that samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Neither report has been placed in the court. Thus it has been rightly submitted that the prosecution could not proved that the recovered article, if any, was actually Ganja or not. 9. From the appreciation of the evidence of witnesses and submissions so forwarded it appears that this case has not been properly handled and the prosecution has badly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the court below is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 10. It has been submitted that the appellant is in custody. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed.