Judgment LP.SINGH, J. 1. All the abovementioned appeals arise from the same judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All the appellants have been convicted under sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the Act) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Gauri Shankar Singh, Officer Incharge of Silao police station received a secret information on 23.9.2001 at 11.50 A.M. that appellant, Pappu Kumar @ Manoj Kumar of Village Mitwan was standing near Thana More on Silao Bypass Road was having smack in his pocket. The informant (P.W. 7) alongwith A.S.I. Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 6) and Mahadeo Paswan (P.W. 9) with some other armed force of Home Guard proceeded towards the place of occurrence after entering the information into the diary. The appellant, Pappu Kumar was apprehended in presence of Dinesh Singh and Laldeo Singh PWs. 2 and 1 respectively. On search two packets of smack was recovered from his money bag and from back pocket of his Fullpant. On enquiry he disclosed that he purchased the same from appellants Karu Singh and Chhotu Mian for his personal use. he also informed that they were still standing near Ganesh Bagicha Musahari and they used to supply smack in that area. Thereafter seizure list was prepared and he was arrested. Soon after they reached near Ganesh Bagicha Musahari but seeing the police party appellant Karu Singh and one other youth who were standing near the scooter tried to flee away but they were apprehended by the police party. The other interrogation, appellant, Karu Singh told that Chhotu Mian had come to see him but earlier apprehended Pappu Kumar opposed his statement and told that Chhotu Mian used to supply the packets of smack to Karu Singh and said Karu Singh used to sale the same to local boys. He also informed that he purchased those Purias from Karu Singh for his personal use. Both the appellants were bodily searched. From search of Karu Singh three Purias of smack and cash of Rs. 135/- was recovered from his underwear. He also informed that he purchased those Purias from Karu Singh for his personal use. Both the appellants were bodily searched. From search of Karu Singh three Purias of smack and cash of Rs. 135/- was recovered from his underwear. Two packets of smack was also recovered from the possession of appellant Chotu Mian. One Bajaj Scooter was also recovered from their possession. These two appellants failed to give satisfactory . reply for keeping the packets of smack and they were arrested. The packets of smack seized was brought to Silao police station. On the basis of the aforesaid statement a formal F.I.R. was drawn up and a case was registered bearing Silao P.S. Case No. 293 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the trial was concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. The case of the defence was that no such occurrence took place and nothing was recovered from the possession of any of the accused persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. P.W. 1, Laldeo Singh and RW. 2 Dinesh Singh are the seizure list witnesses. They have denied any recovery made in their presence. P.W. 3, Ashok Singh is a constable of Home Guard, member of raiding party also did not support the case and has been declared hostile. RW. 4, Chandrika Prasad is also Home Guard constable and also member of raiding party has also not supported the case and has been declared hostile. However, he has stated that three persons were arrested at the alleged time of the occurrence and he identified Karu Singh. RW. 5, Kavindra Prasad is Home Guard constable and also member of the raiding party has stated that two persons were arrested from Musahari Tola near High School. But he has denied recovery of smack from any person. He was also declared hostile. P.W. 6, Rajendra Prasad has also been declared Hostile and has also denied about the recovery of any substance. P.W. 7, Gauri Shankar Singh, the informant has fully supported the case as he has stated in the written report (Ext. 3) and has reiterated that on the day of occurrence at about 11.15 A.M. he received an information about Pappu Kumar possessing smack was there near bypass road. P.W. 7, Gauri Shankar Singh, the informant has fully supported the case as he has stated in the written report (Ext. 3) and has reiterated that on the day of occurrence at about 11.15 A.M. he received an information about Pappu Kumar possessing smack was there near bypass road. He proceeded after making entry in the station diary alongwith other witnesses including Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 8) and A.S.I. Mahadeo Paswan. The appellant, Pappu Kumar was apprehended and his search was made in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Lal Deo Singh, Dinesh Singh PWs. 1 and 2 respectively. Two Purias of smack was recovered from his back pocket. However, he told that he has purchased the same from Karu Singh who used to supply the same to chhotu Mian and both were present at that time near Ganesh Bagicha Mushahari near High School Silao. On his information the police party went to the High School and found them standing. However, they tried to run away but they could be arrested by the police party. On search of their body in presence of PWs. 1 and 2 three Purias of smack and cash of Rs. 135/- was recovered from the pocket of underwear of Karu Singh and two Purias of smack was recovered from the pocket of Chhotu Mian. One Scooter bearing registration no. B.E.W. 2668 claimed to be of Chhotu Mian was also recovered. Seizure list of above recovery was prepared in presence of PWs. 1 and 2 respectively. Formal F.I.R. has been proved by him which is Ext. 4. The seizure list and F.I.R. was in his writing as per his statement. 6. Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 8) has supported the case as has been stated by the informant (P.W. 7). He has also supported for the recovery of packets of smack from the possession of three appellants as has been stated by the informant. He has also stated that Pappu Kumar was apprehended near bypass road Silao and his search was made there and recovery of smack was made. Thereafter on the information of Pappu Kumar they went to Ganesh Bagicha Musahari near High School where other two appellants were apprehended and their search was also conducted and recovery was made. P.W. 9, Mahadeo Paswan has also supported the factum of recovery of smack as stated by P.W. 8. Thereafter on the information of Pappu Kumar they went to Ganesh Bagicha Musahari near High School where other two appellants were apprehended and their search was also conducted and recovery was made. P.W. 9, Mahadeo Paswan has also supported the factum of recovery of smack as stated by P.W. 8. He has further stated that after obtaining permission of the Special Judge the samples of the material so seized was sent for test. He has proved his writing and signature (Ext. 6) and letter written to the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. 7). He has further stated that after seizure the smack was sent to the court in sealed packet which was opened in the court and from where 7 packets of smack were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory which was Ext. A. He has further stated that residue material was also sent to the court. The report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. 9) was also proved by him. A formal witness (P.W. 10) has been examined who has brought the material exhibit and exhibit test report from Forensic Science Laboratory. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the recovery of packets have not been proved. Even on the point of recovery and seizure there are contradictory statement by the material witnesses i.e. PWs. 7, 8 and 9. All other witnesses including the seizure list witnesses and Home Guard witnesses have not supported any recovery and seizure of any packet of the alleged smack. Seizure list was not prepared at the first place of occurrence but has been prepared after one and half hours of the arrest of the appellants. The provisions of Sec. 55 of the Act was not complied with. The seizure article was not handed over to the I.O. and never kept in Malkhana. It was sent to the court on the next working day, therefore, genuinity of the packets could not be relied upon. The seizure list indepedent witnesses PWs. 1 and 2 are not from the village where the occurrence took place which creates doubt. Admittedly both are witnesses from other place. No report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has been recieved and brought til! date. As such he could not be said that the alleged seized article was actually smack. The I.O. in his deposition in paragraph 8 has admitted that he did not send the packets to the court. Admittedly both are witnesses from other place. No report from the Forensic Science Laboratory has been recieved and brought til! date. As such he could not be said that the alleged seized article was actually smack. The I.O. in his deposition in paragraph 8 has admitted that he did not send the packets to the court. Lastly it has been submitted that the mandatory provisions of Sec. 50 of the Act has not been complied with and appellants were never asked or informed of their right that they could be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, if they wanted so. Nowhere in the evidence of witnesses this fact has been mentioned. As such the appellants deserve acquittal and the case of the prosecution has not been concluded in right prospective and it is fit case in which the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. 8. Considering the submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the case has not been conducted in proper prospective. The mandatory provisions of the Act has to be followed meticulously since under the Act sentence is very harsh. The Apex Court in number of cases has specifically held that these provisions are to be followed strictly so that there is no chance of an innocent getting implicated. In the present case the defence has challenged the very recovery of the substance and has assailed that no any independent person has supported the recovery of the drug. The independent witnesses and also constables have not supported the case of the prosecution. Only employees of police station i.e. PWs. 7, 8 and 9 have supported that recovery of smack was there. Even there is contradiction among the police witnesses on the point of recovery and there is contradiction in the statement of the police witnesses. The provision of depositing the recovered substance in Malkhana under Sec. 55 of the Act has also not been complied with and it has been alleged that the drug so recovered was produced in the court on the next day. However, I.O. denies that he has not produced anything before the court. As such there could be doubts about the veracity and genuinity of the production of recovered article in the court. However, I.O. denies that he has not produced anything before the court. As such there could be doubts about the veracity and genuinity of the production of recovered article in the court. It has also been alleged that the test report was not submitted in the court neither any expert has been examined who couid ascertained that the article so recovered was tested by him and found to be Narcotic Drugs. Only test report which is Ext. 9 has been proved by PW. 10 an A.S.I. posted at police station. The report mention about seven packets of smack but what was its weight is not mentioned on it. It appears that provision of Sec. 55 of the Act has not been complied with properly. Samples were not made all the material so recovered has been sent for test. Since just after the seizure there is no account how it was kept in safe custody. Only after two and half months of recovery sample was sealed and sent for test through court. 9. In view of all these lacuna in the story of the prosecution I think that it would not be safe to prosecute the appellants in this case and the appellants deserve benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below is hereby set aside. It has been stated that the appellants are in jail custody. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted, in any other case. 10. In the result, these appeals are allowed.