JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. — In this appeal the appellant challenges the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.9.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri convicting him under Sections 18 and 20 (b) (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act in T.R. Case No.1 of 2001 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rupees one Lakh, in default to undergo R.I. for one year more on the first count and R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months on the second count. 2. Bereft unnecessary details the prosecution case is that on 2.10.2000 at about 2 P.M. while the S.I. of Excise, Puri (Sadar) along with his staff, A.P.R. force and one Executive Magistrate was performing patrolling duty at Naredrakona area, getting reliable information that the accused-appellant was in illegal possession of Ganja and opium in his dwelling house at Dandimala Sahi of Puri town, recorded the information, sent the same to his immediate Superior authority and proceeded to the spot along with the patrolling party, without waiting for search arrant due to paucity of time, lest the accused-appellant would escape. On arriving near the house of the accused-appellant they saw him coming out of his bed room with a gunny bag in a suspi¬cious manner and as such the S.I. detained him, gave his identity and asked him whether he wanted to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer to which he denied and then the S.I. searched the person of the accused-appellant and recovered a polythin bag containing Ganja. He also searched the bed room of the accused-appellant and recovered two more polythin bags containing Ganja, one cloth bag containing opium, one weighing scale and one weigh¬ing unit of 50 grams. The three-polythin bags were found to have contained 10 Kgs. of Ganja each and the cloth bag 2 Kgs and 350 grams of opium. Then S.I. seized the contraband articles in presence of witnesses, sealed the bags with his personal brass seal, pasted paper slips containing signature of the accused-appellant and witnesses including the Executive Magistrate on the bags and prepared seizure list as per Ext.1/1, gave the brass seal in Zima of one Rajesh Kumar, arrested the accused-appellant, examined the witnesses and returned to the Excise barrack with the seized articles. On 4.10.2000 he drew up sample of 50 grams from the content of each of the polythin bags and the cloth bag in presence of the S.D.J.M., Puri in his Court and sent the same through the S.D.J.M. for chemical examination, packed and sealed the bulks of Ganja and opium separately and after conclusion of the investigation submitted P.R. against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 18 and 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereunder he faced the trial. 3. The plea of the accused-appellants is complete denial of his involvement in the crime in question. In order to bring home the charge against the accused-appellant, prosecution examined six witnesses in all,of whom, P.W.1 is an independent witness to search and seizure, P.W.2 is a constable, who was a member of the raiding party, P.W.3 is the R.I. who demarcated the house, where from the contraband arti¬cles, weighing scale and the weighing unit were alleged to have been recovered, P.W.4 is the Executive Magistrate, in whose presence the search and seizure was made and P.W.5 is the Inspec¬tor of Excise, Puri, the immediate Superior Authority of P.W.6, the Investigating Officer. The defence did not prefer to examine any witness. 4. After assessing the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 18 and 20 (b) (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and convicted and sentenced him thereunder as mentioned earlier. Being aggrieved with the said order of conviction and sen¬tence the accused-appellant preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that as per the prosecution case, after the contraband articles were recovered, P.W.6 weighed and sealed the same separately with his brass seal using sealing wax and thereafter gave the brass seal in zima of an independent witness namely, Rajesh Kumar Panda, but neither the said witness was examined before the trial Court nor the brass seal was produced before it during trial. So, it creates a serious doubt, if in fact the brass seal was given in zima of Rajesh Kumar Panda or it was there with P.W.6 himself and whether the sample sent for chemical examination was in fact collected from the alleged seized contraband articles and as such the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused-appellant on that score alone. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision Purna Chandra Suar v. State of Orissa 2000 (19) O.C.R. 225. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant further submitted that as required under Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.W.6 ought to have produced the seized contraband articles before the O.I.C. of the nearest Police station but instead, he took the same to the Excise barrack and his evidence is silent with regard to the place where the same were kept till those were produced before the Court. So the possibility of tampering with the al¬leged seized articles could not be ruled out. The mandatory provision of Section 52 of the Act having not been complied with, the accused-appellant ought to have been acquitted. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision Vaskar Kumar Karan @ Vaskar Chandra Karan v. State 2001 (20) O.C.R. 113 . 6. Per contra, learned Addl.Standing Counsel submitted that Rajesh Kumar Panda, in whose Zima the personal brass seal of P.W.6 was given could not be traced out despite sincere efforts being made, and as such he could neither be examined nor the brass seal could be produced before the trial Court. He was not deliberately withheld from the witness box by the prosecution. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel supporting the view of the trial Court taken in the impugned judgment further submitted that at 2.30 P.M., getting information about the possession of contraband articles by the accused-appellant in his dwelling house at Dandi¬malasahi of Puri town, P.W.6 proceeded to the spot and after observing all formalities searched and seized the contraband articles, the weighing unit etc. which continued upto night fall, so, instead of producing the seized articles before the O.I.C. of nearest Police station he kept the same with him in that night only and on the next day he produced the same before the trial Court and as such there was no scope for him to tamper with the seized articles or the seal impressions. 7. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that graver the offence, stronger should be the evidence. Admit¬tedly accused-appellant was charged under serious offences, so the evidence against him ought to have been stronger. P.W.1, the only independent witness to search and seizure, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 7. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that graver the offence, stronger should be the evidence. Admit¬tedly accused-appellant was charged under serious offences, so the evidence against him ought to have been stronger. P.W.1, the only independent witness to search and seizure, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 6, it appears that the personal brass seal of P.W.6 was given in Zima of Rajesh Kumar Panda, but he has not been examined. There is no evidence to show if any zimanama was executed by the said witness in token of his receipt of the same P.W.6, while being examined in the trial Court admitted that he did not obtain any receipt from Rajesh Kumar Panda showing that he took the seal in his zima. Under such circumstances, it creates a serious doubt whether in fact the said seal was given in zima of Rajesh Kumar Panda and whether Rajesh Kumar Panda was a genuine person and consequentially it also creates a doubt wheth¬er the seal impressions found in the packets of the alleged con¬traband articles were genuine ones. In the decision Purna Chandra Suar (supra) this Court held that since the brass seal used for the purpose of sealing the sample and other packets was not produced in Court and the seizure witness to whom the seal was handed over was not examined, the possibility of tampering with the seal put on the sample packet could not be ruled out. In the present case this suspicion is strengthened since P.W.6, instead of producing the seized contraband articles before the O.I.C. of nearest Police Station as required under Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act, kept the same in the Excise barrack. In the deci¬sion Vaskar Kumar Karan (supra), it has been held by this Court that non-compliance of the provision under Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act creates suspicion as to whether the seized articles were not tampered with. The submission of the learned Addl.Stand¬ing Counsel supporting the view of the trial Court that there was no scope for P.W.6 to tamper with the seized articles or the seal impressions cannot be tenable since the seized articles and the seal impressions can be tampered within a short span of time. The submission of the learned Addl.Stand¬ing Counsel supporting the view of the trial Court that there was no scope for P.W.6 to tamper with the seized articles or the seal impressions cannot be tenable since the seized articles and the seal impressions can be tampered within a short span of time. Moreover, as found from the evidence on record, P.W.6 kept the seized articles with him not only for one night, but till he produced the same before the Sessions Judge, Puri on the succeed¬ing day. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgment convict¬ing the appellant and sentencing him as aforesaid is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 13.9.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri in T.R. Case No.1 of 2001 convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 18 and 20(b) (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing him thereunder as stated earlier is hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is found not guilty and is acquitted of the charges. He be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is otherwise not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.