ALOK KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) MD. Sayeed faced charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act, in connection with N. D. P. S. Case No. 49 of 2001 before the learned Judge, 6th Bench of City Sessions Court, Kolkata and after conclusion of trial, Md. Sayeed was convicted and he was sentenced to suffer R. I, for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac), in default, to suffer S.. for three years more. ( 2 ) MD. Sayeed, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence has preferred this appeal. Mr. Jash along with mr. Saha, appeared for appellant, Md. Sayeed and Mr. L. M. Dutta, with mr. Pinaki Bhattacharya, appear for the State. ( 3 ) WE have examined the prosecution evidence, considered the judgment of the learned trial Judge impugned in this appeal and we have also considered submissions of both Mr. Jash and Mr. L. M. Dutta and we intend to dispose of this appeal by delivering our judgment in open Court. ( 4 ) THE prosecution allegation against Md. Sayeed has been that on 8th November, 2001, at about 1300 hour on a foot-path near State transport Bus Terminal at Ultadanga Main Road, a gunny bag containing ganja was found in possession of Md. Sayeed and ultimately that bag was seized by P. W. 3 Samir Kumar Biswas, in presence of local witnesses, sample was taken and Md. Sayeed was detained for further follow up action. ( 5 ) P. W. 1, subsequently lodged a formal complaint against md. Sayeed and the sample taken on 8th November, 2001, was forwarded to the laboratory of the Narcotic Control Bureau and the examiner after examination found the sample to be that of ganja. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the complaint submitted by P. W. 1, Md. Sayeed was asked to face charge as indicated earlier. ( 7 ) DURING trial before the learned Judge, prosecution side examined in all six witnesses, of them P. W. 1 filed the formal complaint and he had no knowledge about the alleged seizure of the contraband article from md. Sayeed, P. W. 2. was the chemical examiner, who on receipt of the sample from N. C. B. , prepared report indicating the sample to be that of ganja, P. W. 3, was Mr. Sayeed, P. W. 2. was the chemical examiner, who on receipt of the sample from N. C. B. , prepared report indicating the sample to be that of ganja, P. W. 3, was Mr. Samir Kumar Biswas, according to prosecution, he was leader of the raiding party and he intercepted Md. Sayeed and recovered the bag allegedly containing ganja in presence of P. W. 4, and p. W. 5, P. W. 6, was the godown supervisor of the N. C. B. at the relevant time. ( 8 ) FROM the evidence of P. W. 3, who appears to be the main witness for the prosecution, it transpires that in presence of two local witnesses, he intercepted Md. Sayeed and made the search and seizure and, unfortunately those local witnesses were not produced during trial. ( 9 ) THE learned Trial Judge, having regard to the prosecution evidence, mainly deposition of P. W. 3, P. W. 4, P. W. 5 and relying on the seizure list and the statement given by Md. Sayeed during his detention and on the basis of report of the chemical examiner, found substance in the prosecution allegation and, accordingly, the learned Judge convicted md. Sayeed and recorded the order of sentence against him. ( 10 ) APPEARING for Md. Sayeed, Mr. Jash, has placed before us the prosecution evidence both oral and documentary. ( 11 ) MR. Jash, contends that in this case, surprisingly enough, save and except P. W. 3, Samir Kumar Biswas, no-body came forward to support the search and seizure and, in fact, on examination of the statement of p. W. 4 and P. W. 5, it appears that although they were physically present at the place of occurrence and witnessed the search and seizure, they did not feel it necessary to sign as witness to the seizure list. ( 12 ) MR. Jash contends that although from the seizure list, we get signature of two persons allegedly stated to be local independent witnesses, but for the reasons best known to the officer of N. C. B. , those witnesses were not produced, and this would clearly indicate that signature of those person was fictitiously procured and there was practically no existence of such person to witness the alleged search and seizure and in fact, no search and seizure as claimed by the officer of N. C. B. ever took place. ( 13 ) MR. Jash contends that since the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act regarding punishment are stringent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in catena of decisions, observed that strict compliance regarding interception, search and seizure are mandatory for any trial under the n. D. P. S. Act, but in this case, on examination of prosecution evidence, we find, to our utter surprise, that save and except, the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 3, there is virtually no evidence to support the prosecution allegation made against the accused person. ( 14 ) MR. Jash finally contends that on examination of report of the chemical examiner along with nature of sample received by him, it would appear that there was material discrepancy regarding the sample received and the sample examined to arrive at the report submitted by the examiner and this also goes at the root of the prosecution case and makes the prosecution case totally unacceptable in the eye of law. ( 15 ) MR. Dutta, appearing for the State contends that P. W. 3. , Samir kumar Biswas, in his detailed Examination-in-Chief gave the fact behind the search and seizure and he being a responsible officer of the N. C. B. , there was no reason to question his credibility and the learned trial Judge, rightly reposed his faith on P. W. 3 and found the appellant guilty of the offence, ( 16 ) MR. Dutta, contends that the report of the chemical examiner clearly indicated that the sample collected from the article found to be in possession of Md. Sayeed was, in fact, a contraband article in the form of ganja and that being the report of the chemical examiner, when recovery of the bag in question was sufficiently proved, the learned Judge did not commit any mistake in convicting the appellant. Sayeed was, in fact, a contraband article in the form of ganja and that being the report of the chemical examiner, when recovery of the bag in question was sufficiently proved, the learned Judge did not commit any mistake in convicting the appellant. ( 17 ) THERE is no denying of the fact that the provision of punishment under the N. D. P. S, Act is very stringent and, for that reason, search and seizure under the Act, must be done in strict compliance with law arid it is pertinent to mention in this context that there are several provisions in the N. D. P. S. Act, starting from Section 42 indicating the manners by which an officer would conduct search and seizure and take sample, in case a person is found in possession of contraband article under the n. D. P. S. Act. ( 18 ) WE find on examination of prosecution evidence that in this particular case only P. W. 3, was examined to support the search and seizure and also taking of sample from the article allegedly found in the possession of the appellant. ( 19 ) WE find from the statement of P. W. 3, that both P. W. 4 and p. W. 5, being the officer of N. C. B. were with him and it is really mystery to us why these two responsible officers were not cited as witnesses to the seizure list. ( 20 ) WE gather from the statement of P. W. 3 that on secret information and on being identified by informant, the appellant was intercepted and we further find from statement of P. W. 3, that the information thus received was reduced into writing and the same was kept in a sealed envelope but, to our utter surprise, we find that P. W. 3, did not consider it necessary to produce that written information to substantiate his oral testimony regarding search and seizure, ( 21 ) FROM the seizure list, we find that two people of the locality came forward to sign the seizure list and had those persons been examined, we could have taken at least that search and seizure conducted by P. W. 3, was proved but here also prosecution miserably failed and those two witnesses were not produced to corroborate the action allegedly taken by p. W. 3. ( 22 ) THUS, after considering prosecution evidence, as a whole, and having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Jash, and Mr. L. M. Dutta, we are of the considered view that since save and except the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 3, there is no other convincing evidence to support search and seizure as regards the present appellant, keeping in mind the stringent provision of punishment under the N. D. P. S. Act, and the requirement of strict compliance about search and seizure, we cannot lend support to the order of the learned Judge, which in our view, was not legal and proper having regard to the scanty evidence produced by prosecution during trial. ( 23 ) ACCORDINGLY, after hearing both the sides and on perusal of prosecution evidence, we find sufficient merit in this appeal and we are inclined to allow the same. ( 24 ) THE appeal preferred by Md. Sayeed, is accordingly allowed and the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him, are hereby set aside. Since Md. Sayeed is in detention, we direct the Superintendent of the Correctional Home where, Md. Sayeed is detained for his immediate release from this case, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case.