JUDGMENT I.S. Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.07.2001 passed by the Court of Shri R.K. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, Distt.-Ratlam in S.T. No. 149/95 by which the appellants-Vinay Kumar and Shambhu have been convicted under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years along with fine of ' 1 lakh (One lakh) to each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years by each. 2. According to prosecution story, on 11.06.1995, Mr. Pradeep Singh, in-charge, Police Station-Piploda, Tehsil-Jaora was on Moharram duties and for checking of villages, at that time he saw that a tractor with trolley containing some Articles was passing through bus stand, Mawta, which was stopped by Mr. Pradeep Singh, driver of the tractor tried to run away but he was stopped. On inquiry, he informed presence of poppy straw in the gunny bags loaded in the trolley. He was having no papers about the transit and permit. The driver told his name as Shambhu, hence the independent witnesses-Champalal and Rameshwar were called on and information about the transportation was sent to SDOP, Jaora. After obtaining due consent of the accused and after giving search of the force before Panch witnesses, the substance kept in the gunny bags was identified as poppy straw. There were 15 bags. On weightment, the total weight was found to be 629 kg.. Thereafter, for checking purpose little quantity was taken out from each bag and 2 samples each of 2 kg. were prepared and marked as Articles A-1 & A-2. The samples were sealed as per procedure. The 15 gunny bags were seized along with tractor trolley and accused -Shambu was arrested on the spot thereafter, the police party along with accused, seized articles and tractor trolley came back to police station where the seized property was handed over to head police constable (Mohorrir). FIR was registered at crime No. 78/95 under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 3. During investigation, accused-Shambhu was interrogated and he gave information that the seized poppy straw belongs to Vinay Kumar Jain alias Bhura and he has unloaded 21 bags of poppy straw in the open space behind his house near bus stand. Hence, on receiving information, Mr. FIR was registered at crime No. 78/95 under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 3. During investigation, accused-Shambhu was interrogated and he gave information that the seized poppy straw belongs to Vinay Kumar Jain alias Bhura and he has unloaded 21 bags of poppy straw in the open space behind his house near bus stand. Hence, on receiving information, Mr. Pradeep Singh Ranawat along with witnesses Rameshwar and Champalal proceeded to village-Mawta and reached at the house of Vinay Kumar and they informed him with the information given by Shambhu. Thereafter, after obtaining due consent for the search of the house, Inspector - Mr. Pradeep Singh gave search of police party to witnesses of accused-Vinay Kumar and a Panchnama was prepared. The accused-Vinay Kumar was informed about the information of 21 Bags of poppy straw and after obtaining his consent, from the open place at the back side of his house, 21 gunny bags of poppy straw were found. The bags were opened and checked and then it was found that they contained the same item i.e. poppy straw as was informed. On weightment, its weight was found to be 818 kg. Thereafter, after collecting little quantity of poppy straw from each bag, 2 samples each of 2 kg. were prepared and sealed as per procedure and marked as Articles A-1 & A-2. The remaining quantity was seized along with samples and the accused-Vinay Kumar was arrested on spot and thereafter, police party returned to police station and seized articles were handed over to head constable (Mohorrir). Two samples of the seized property-poppy straw were sent to FSL, Indore for chemical examination. The relevant certificate of the ownership of the house of Vinay Kumar was obtained and after completion of the investigation, Challan was filed in the Court. After trial, the appellant has been convicted as mentioned above. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that independent witnesses were hostile and the seized property was not produced in the Court. The seizure was from the open place and the conscious possession of the appellant on the seized property was not proved. Sealing of the samples was defective and signatures of witnesses and seizing officer were not obtained. The slips pasted on the samples was not having the signatures of witnesses and marking of articles on the samples were defective. Investigating officer Mr. Sealing of the samples was defective and signatures of witnesses and seizing officer were not obtained. The slips pasted on the samples was not having the signatures of witnesses and marking of articles on the samples were defective. Investigating officer Mr. Pradeep Ranawat has deposed in evidence that the date was marked on samples. The samples were produced after two years of filing of the Challan. The seized bulk quantity of the poppy straw was not produced before the Court and the order for its disposal was obtained from the Court, but no such order was produced in the court that it was destroyed as per procedure. The seized property was not sent to Drug Disposal Committee for disposal. No such certificate was issued by the Drug Disposal Committee for the destruction of the poppy straw. The procedure adopted by the seizing officer about disposal of the seized bulk quantity was not as per law. On the basis of it, it was not proved that the property was disposed of or destructed as per procedure. Hence, the appellant was not liable to be punished. Hence, the appeal be accepted. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent/State that the case was proved on the basis of the evidence produced in the trial court. The seized bulk quantity of the property was destroyed after obtaining orders from the court hence, it was not necessary that it should be produced because it was disposed of prior to the evidence. The samples were produced in the Court and hence, appeal being devoid of merits be dismissed accordingly. 6. Considered the arguments and record perused. From perusal of the record of trial court, it reveals that the bulk quantity of the seized poppy straw was not produced before trial court. An application was filed by in-charge of police station-Piploda on 27.03.97 before trial court for seeking permission for disposal of the seized property. In the application, it was mentioned that in the premises of police station, there is no space to keep such a huge amount of poppy straw. Due to rain and by leakage of the roof of police station, the seized poppy straw has been totally destroyed and so many insects have been germinated in it and hence 1447 kg. poppy straw be permitted to be destroyed. Due to rain and by leakage of the roof of police station, the seized poppy straw has been totally destroyed and so many insects have been germinated in it and hence 1447 kg. poppy straw be permitted to be destroyed. This application was allowed on 22.09.97 and order (P-16) was issued by the court. In this order it was mentioned that the court has permitted for the disposal of the above seized 1447 kg. poppy straw. It means that after obtaining permission from the court about disposal of the poppy straw, the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and rules enforced by GSR 339 (E) dated 10.05.07 was to be followed. After the destruction of the poppy straw as per rules, the certificate in this respect by Drug Disposal Committee was to be submitted to the Court, but no such procedure was followed and the seized property was not sent to the Drug Disposal Committee. In Malkhana register (Ex.P-31) it has been entered that on 17.11.97, the above poppy straw was destroyed before Panch witnesses and Panchnama to this effect was prepared, but no such Panchnama was produced before trial court though this procedure was not as per rules framed in this regard. Hence, no record was produced before trial court that the above property-poppy straw was destroyed as per procedure. The rules dated 10.05.2007 (supra) were framed superseding the standing order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989. They are being re-produced as under: G.S.R. 339(E), dated 10th May, 2007. - In exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and in supersession of Notification NO. S.O. 381(E), dated 29th May, 1989, and Standing Order 1/89, dated 13th June, 1989, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession the Central Government, having regard to the hazardous nature of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their the vulnerability to theft, substitution, and constraints of proper storage space hereby, specifies the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which can, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed off, the officers who can so dispose them of and the manner in which they can be disposed off. 2. Drugs that can be disposed off. 2. Drugs that can be disposed off. - All narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances can be disposed off under Section 52-A of the Act. 3. Officers who can dispose off drugs. - Any officer in-charge of a police station or any officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act can dispose off drugs under Section 52-A of the Act. 4. Manner of disposal. - (1) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, of the Act, or if it is seized by such an officer himself, he shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances as per Annexure 1 to this notification and apply to any Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 52-A as per Annexure 2 to this notification. (2) After the Magistrate allows the application under Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A, the officer mentioned in Clause (1) above shall preserve the certified inventory, photographs and samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate as primary evidence for the case and submit details of the drug consignments to the Chairman of the Drug Disposal Committee for a decision by the Committee on the disposal. The officer shall send a copy of the details alongwith the drug consignment to the officer-in-charge of the godown. 4.1. Drug Disposal Committee. - The Head of the Department of each Central and State drug law enforcement agency shall constitute one or more Drug Disposal Committees comprising three members each. Each such Committee shall be headed by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Joint Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Joint Director of DRI or officers of equivalent rank. The Committee will be directly responsible to the Head of Department. 4.1.1. Functions - The functions of the Drug Disposal Committees will be to: (a) meet as frequently as possible and necessary; (b) conduct a detailed review of drugs pending disposal; (c) order disposal of drugs; and (d) advice the respective investigation officers/supervisory officers on the steps to be initiated for expeditious disposal. 4.1.2. Procedure to be followed by the committee with regard to disposal of drugs. 4.1.2. Procedure to be followed by the committee with regard to disposal of drugs. The officer-in-charge of godown shall prepare a list of all drug consignments that have been certified under Section 52-A of the Act to having become ripe for disposal and submit it to the Chairman of the concerned Drug Disposal Committee. After examining the list and satisfying that the drugs mentioned therein are fit for disposal and are no longer required for legal proceedings and that the approval of the Court has been obtained for the purpose, the members of the respective Drug Disposal Committee shall endorse necessary certificates to this effect. The committee shall thereafter physically examine and verify the weight and other details of each of the drug consignments with reference to the seizure report, report of chemical analysis, and any other documents and record its findings in each case. 4.1.3. Power of committee for disposal of seized drugs. - The Committee can order disposal of drug consignments up to quantities or values indicated in the Table 1 below: Table 1 : Quantities and values up to which Drug Disposal Committees can order disposal of drug consignments. Name of drug Quantity per consignment 1. Heroin 5 kg 2. Hashis(Charas) 100 kg 3. Hashish oil 20 kg 4. Ganja 1000 kg 5. Cocaine 2 kg 6. Mandrax 3000 kg 7. Poppy straw Up to 10 MT 8. Other drugs Up to value of ' 50 lacs Provided that if consignments are larger in quantity or of higher value than those indicated in Table 1, the Drug Disposal Committee shall send its recommendations to the Head of the Department who can order their disposal by a high level Drug Disposal Committee specially constituted for this purpose. 4.2. Mode of disposal of drugs. - (i) Opium, morphine, codeine and the baine shall be disposed off by transferring to the Government Opium and Alkaloid Works under the Chief Controller of Factories. (ii) In case of drugs other than the drugs mentioned in Clause (i), the Chief Controller of Factories shall be intimated by the fastest means of communication available, details of drug consignments that are ready for disposal. (ii) In case of drugs other than the drugs mentioned in Clause (i), the Chief Controller of Factories shall be intimated by the fastest means of communication available, details of drug consignments that are ready for disposal. (iii) The Chief Controller of Factories shall indicate within 15 days of the date of receipt of the communication, the quantities of drugs, if any, that are required by him to supply as samples under Rule 67-B. (iv) Such quantities of drugs, if any, as required by the Chief Controller of Factories under Clause (iii) shall be transferred to him and the remaining quantities of drugs shall be destroyed as per the procedure outlined in para 4.1.2. (v) Destruction shall be by incineration in incinerators fitted with appropriate air pollution control devices, which comply with emission standards. Such incineration may only be done in places where adequate facilities and security arrangements exist. In order to ensure that such incineration may not be a health hazard or polluting, consent of the State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control committee, as the case may be, should be obtained. Destruction shall be carried out at the presence of the Members of the Drug Disposal Committee. 4.3. Intimation to Head of Department on destruction. - The Disposal Committee shall intimate the Head of the Department regarding the programme of destruction at least 15 days in advance so that, in case he deems fit, he may either himself conduct surprise checks or depute an officer for conducting such surprise checks. After every destruction operation, the Drug Disposal Committee shall submit to the Head of the Department a report giving details of destruction. 4.4. Certificate of destruction. - A certificate of destruction (in triplicate) containing all the relevant data like godown entry number, gross and net weight of the drugs seized, etc., shall be prepared and signed by the Chairman and Members of the Drug Disposal Committee as per format at Annexure 3. The original copy shall be pasted in the godown register after making necessary entries to this effect, the duplicate to be retained in the seizure case file and the triplicate copy will be kept by the Drug Disposal Committee. Details of disposal of drugs shall be reported to the Narcotics Control Bureau in the Monthly Master Reports. 7. The original copy shall be pasted in the godown register after making necessary entries to this effect, the duplicate to be retained in the seizure case file and the triplicate copy will be kept by the Drug Disposal Committee. Details of disposal of drugs shall be reported to the Narcotics Control Bureau in the Monthly Master Reports. 7. Therefore, from the above rules it was necessary that the property due to be destroyed must be forwarded to the Drug Disposal Committee. If the quantity of the property due for disposal exceeds from 1000 kg. then as per rules it was to be forwarded to the high level Drug Disposal Committee constituted for the purpose and thereafter, it was to be destroyed by the high level Drug Disposal Committee thereafter, the certificate of destruction was to be issued and which shall be produced before the court to prove the fact of disposal of the property, but no such certificate was produced and the seized property 1447 kg. poppy straw was not destroyed as per procedure. Hence, it is not proved that the seized poppy straw 1447 kg. was destroyed as per procedure. When the orders for the disposal of the property was obtained by the prosecution then it was their duty to prove that it was destroyed as per law. Hence, there is non-compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS Act also. 8. As regards the samples, it has been mentioned that samples were marked as Articles A-1&A-2 in Panchnama (Ex.P-16), but from whom it was seized, it has not been mentioned. In Panchnama (P-17), samples seized from Vinay Kumar alias Bhura have been marked as Articles A-1 &A-2 similarly in Panchnama (P-18), samples of poppy straw seized from accused-Shambhu marked as A-1 & A-2 and in seizer memo (P-19), the samples of poppy straw seized from Vinay Kumar were marked as A-1 & A-2. In this way, there were 2 samples, which were marked as sample Article A-1 and sample Article A-2. No sample was marked as Article B-1 or B-2. Remaining bulk quantity of 15 bags seized vide Ex.P-18 and 21 bags of poppy straw seized by seizure memo Ex.P-19 was sealed on the spot and marked as articles this fact has not been mentioned in both the Panchnamas (Ex.P-18 & Ex.P-19). In remaining Panchnamas, it has also not been mentioned that 15 gunny bags containing 629 kg. Remaining bulk quantity of 15 bags seized vide Ex.P-18 and 21 bags of poppy straw seized by seizure memo Ex.P-19 was sealed on the spot and marked as articles this fact has not been mentioned in both the Panchnamas (Ex.P-18 & Ex.P-19). In remaining Panchnamas, it has also not been mentioned that 15 gunny bags containing 629 kg. poppy straw and 21 gunny bags containing 818 poppy straw were sealed properly and marked as articles. 9. In evidence, Vinod Lohkre (P-4) has deposed that he was posted as senior scientist in FSL, Indore and he received 2 sealed packets marked as Articles A-1 & B for analysis through constable Ghanshaym (No. 471) on 22.06.95. Further he has deposed that he confirmed the presence of poppy straw in the sample Articles A and B. It is surprising that when the samples were not marked as Article B in all the Panchnamas (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19) then how the samples marked as Article B were sent to FSL. In the court statement, Mr. Pradeep Singh Ranawat (PW-11) has deposed that he prepared samples A1-A2 from the poppy straw from 15 gunny bags and he prepared samples B1-B2 from poppy straw from 21 gunny bags. In this way, according to his statement, the samples prepared were marked as Articles A1-A2 and B1-B2. Further he has deposed that samples produced in the court are Articles A and B and the remaining samples from FSL are Articles C & D. In this way, in the statement of Mr. Pradeep Singh (PW-11) samples A1-A2 and B1-B2 are not the same, which were produced in the court as Articles A & B and Articles C & D, because the preparation of Articles A, B, C & D is not supported by the statement of Mr. Pradeep Singh (PW-11) by Panchnamas (Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19), the marking of articles on these samples at the time of seizure and preparation of samples are doubtful. In cross examination, Mr. Pradeep Singh (PW-11) has deposed that the slips pasted on sample Articles C & D were pasted on the spot, which bear crime No. 78/95, but on the slips, his name, name of witnesses, signatures of the witnesses are not existing. The slips are not sealed with Seal and Chapari. It is correct to say that without tearing of chit, the packet can be opened and re-sealed. The slips are not sealed with Seal and Chapari. It is correct to say that without tearing of chit, the packet can be opened and re-sealed. On Article C, the paper is pasted, which bears probably seal of FSL and on any other articles, there is no seal of FSL. This shows that the samples were not prepared as per procedure and therefore, sealing was defective and the chit pasted on the sample was not pasted on the stitches of the packet and without affecting or tearing the chit, the packet can be opened and re-sealed. Hence, it is proved that the sealing of the samples was defective. 10. The independent witnesses of seizure memo were Champalal (PW-5) and Rameshwar (PW-10). All the proceedings for preparation of Panchnamas (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28) were taken up before these two witnesses, but they were hostile. They have not supported the prosecution story. According to statement of Champalal (PW-5), nothing has happened before him. He does not know the accused persons. He has denied the step by step proceedings taken up by seizing officer vide Panchnamas (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28). According to him, police inspector obtained his signatures at Piploda Naka and said him that later on he will tell him why he has taken signatures on paper. 11. According to statement of Rameshwar (PW-10), two years before police got his signatures on papers, but he had no information that what for the papers are prepared and his signatures have been taken and police did not inform him about it. He has also denied step by step proceedings taken up by the police vide Panchnamas (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28). Both the witnesses have denied the facts that they gave statements (Ex.P-29 and Ex.P-33) to the police. In this way, the proceedings taken up vide Panchnamas (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-28) are not supported by the independent witnesses. Shri Vinod Lohkre (PW-4) has deposed that he received samples A&B for analysis, but no sample was marked as Article 'B' on the spot at the time of seizure. From the statement of Mr. Pradeep Singh (Ex.P-11), it is crystal clear that his statement about preparation of samples is not reliable as he prepared samples A-1 & A-2 two times, while samples produced in the court are Articles A, B, C and D, hence, samples produced in the court are not supported by his statement. 12. From the statement of Mr. Pradeep Singh (Ex.P-11), it is crystal clear that his statement about preparation of samples is not reliable as he prepared samples A-1 & A-2 two times, while samples produced in the court are Articles A, B, C and D, hence, samples produced in the court are not supported by his statement. 12. The samples A, B, C & D were produced at the time of evidence of Shri Pradeep Singh (PW-10). He has deposed that the slips were pasted on the samples at the spot, but on the slips the signatures of witnesses and himself are not there. His name and signatures are not on slips. On the four corners of the slip, the Chapdi Seal is not there. It is correct to say that without tearing the slip, the sample can be opened and closed. This shows that the sealing of the samples were defective and the possibility of the tampering cannot be ruled out. 13. The bulk quantity of the poppy straw seized in 15 gunny bags and 21 gunny bags was not produced before the court at the time of the evidence. Hence in the absence of it, it cannot be said that sample Articles A1-A2 or A, B, C and D were prepared from it. It has also been argued that the place from where 21 gunny bags of poppy straw were seized from accused-Vinay Kumar was not in his ownership which were placed behind his house. Thus, he was not in conscious possession of it. He has been simply accused of the place from where poppy straw was seized, which was a open place behind his house. 14. Considered the arguments from seizure memo (P-19), which reveals that the 21 gunny bags were seized from the open place behind the house of Vinay Kumar. Gafoor Chand (PW-8), who transported the above 21 gunny bags by his tractor trolley to police station has deposed that the above poppy straw was lying in the open space near house of Vinay Kumar at a short distance. This witness has also deposed that he picked up it in the night and his tractor trolley was standing near latrine of the house and on the other side of the space poppy straw was lying which he picked up and kept in his trolley. This witness has also deposed that he picked up it in the night and his tractor trolley was standing near latrine of the house and on the other side of the space poppy straw was lying which he picked up and kept in his trolley. This witness has been declared hostile and on cross examination in this respect, according to seizure memo (P-19) the time of seizure was 13 p.m. while this witness has deposed that it was night and according to this witness, poppy straw was lying in open space. According to statement of Mr. Pradeep Sing Ranawat (PW-11), he prepared Panchnama in the open place of the back side of the house and thereafter, he searched house and found 21 gunny bags, which were containing poppy straw. Thereafter, they were seized hence, according to this statement, 21 gunny bags were seized on search from the house and not from the open place. In this way, the witness has not supported the prosecution case. Gafoor Chand (P-8) has not supported the prosecution story in this respect and he has not been declared hostile. In these circumstances, the evidence of both these witnesses are contradictory to each other therefore, conscious possession of the appellant-Vinay Kumar at the place from where poppy straw was seized is not proved. 15. In the cases of Ritesh Chakarvarty v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 EFR 127 and Bholaram Kushwaha v. State of M.P. (2001) 1 EFR 160, it has been held that if the independent witness of the seizure memo has not supported the fact of the seizure, the seizure Panchnama is not proved. In the case of Jitendra and Anr. v. State of M.P. 2004 1 EFR 229, it has been held by the apex court that: the evidence to prove that charas and ganja were recovered from the possession of accused consisted of the evidence of the police officers and the panch witnesses. The panch witnesses turned hostile. Thus, we find that apart from the testimony of Rajendra Pathak PW-7, Angad Singh PW-8 and sub-inspector D.J. Raj PW-6, there is no independent witness as to the recovery of the drugs from the possession of accused. The Charas and Ganja alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused, were not even produced before the Trial Court, so as to connect it with the samples sent to the FSL. The Charas and Ganja alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused, were not even produced before the Trial Court, so as to connect it with the samples sent to the FSL. There is no material produced in the Trial apart from the interested testimony of police officers, to show that the Ganja and Charas were seized from the possession of the accused or that the samples sent to FSL which were taken from drugs seized from the possession of the accused. In the Trial, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of Charas and Ganja were seized from the possession of accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials, which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchanama does not discharge the heavy burden, which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with stringent sentence under the NDPS Act. The same view has been adopted in the case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab 2008 (IV) AD 337 as well as in the case of Laxminarayan v. State of M.P. 2009 2 JLJ 148 . In this way, by non production of the bulk quantity of the seized poppy straw, it cannot be said that the samples were prepared from the bulk quantity. The seizure memo has not been proved legally. In these circumstances, the appellants are not liable to be convicted. 16. In the case of Mohd. Aslam Khan v. NCB AIR 1996 SC 3033 , the apex court has held that- the prosecution failed to establish the ownership of the house in question belonging to the appellant, hence the conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. The same view has been taken as under in the case of Ismile Khan v. State of Gujrat (2001) 1 EFR 6; all the accused were found in the room when the inspector raided the room, one gunny bag with charas was found in a corner. There is no evidence that accused were dealing with narcotic drugs. There is also no evidence to show that accused had possession of the room, actual or constructive. There is no evidence that accused were dealing with narcotic drugs. There is also no evidence to show that accused had possession of the room, actual or constructive. There is no statutory presumption for drawing any presumption that the accused has possession of the narcotic or psychotropic substance. No presumption under the law even under Section 114 evidence Act can be drawn because the accused were present when room was raided. On the solitary evidence the conviction cannot be sustained. In this case, there is no evidence that the open place from where the 21 bags were seized was of the ownership or of possession of the accused-Vinod Kumar. 17. It has also been argued that the seized poppy straw was seized on 11.06.95 and samples were deposited in the court on 29.09.97 with unexplained delay after the order of the court on 22.09.97. Bulk quantity of the poppy straw was not sealed on the spot and not re-sealed before deposit in the Malkhana with samples hence, the procedure adopted was defective and delay was not explained. Hence, the accused were not liable to be convicted. 18. Considered the arguments. There is no evidence of the seizing officer-Mr. Pradeep Singh Ranawat (PW-11), who has seized 15 and 21 gunny bags on spot, had sealed them and marked as articles. According to statement of Ganpat Singh (PW-7), 4 samples, 15 gunny bags and 21 gunny bags were handed over to him by Mr. Pradeep Singh Ranawat on 06.11.95. He deposited 4 samples in the Malkhana of the police station and kept bulk quantity of the poppy straw inside the campus of the police station. He received the remnant samples from FSL on 19.07.95 which he kept in the Malkhana. Thereafter, on 29.09.97, he deposited 4 samples in the Malkhana of the court through constable-Prempal Singh (No.260). The relevant entries are Ex.P-31. From Malkhana Register (P-31), it reveals that on 19.07.95 remnant Articles A-B were received from FSL and deposited in Malkhana. There is no explanation why the samples were not deposited upto 2 years and 3 months in the court why they were lying in the Malkhana of the police station and why after receipt of the remnant samples on 19.07.95 they were not deposited in the court. There is no explanation of delay. There is no explanation why the samples were not deposited upto 2 years and 3 months in the court why they were lying in the Malkhana of the police station and why after receipt of the remnant samples on 19.07.95 they were not deposited in the court. There is no explanation of delay. It is also pertinent to note that there is no evidence to this fact that the property deposited in the Malkhana was re-sealed by the seal of police station by officer in-charge of the police station. Hence, there is non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. It has been held by the apex court in the case of Valsala v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp (3) SCC 665, that in the absence of evidence to show that during long period (of over three months in this case) between the seizure and production in court, the seized article was in the custody of the Officer in charge of police station and that the same was kept under seal, held, it was doubtful whether the same article that was seized was sent to Chemical Examiner. Investigation was perfunctory and evidence insufficient and hence conviction set aside. The same view has been adopted in the case of Ramgul v. State of M.P. (2003) 1 EFR 220. 19. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that during the trial, independent witnesses were hostile, property was not produced in the court and after the order of the court, samples were deposited in the court, but there is no reasonable explanation about late deposit of the samples in the court, the samples do not bear the signatures of the witnesses and seizing officer, marking on the articles of samples were defective. The statement of the seizing officer Mr. Pradeep Singh Ranawat (P-11) does not confirm to the marking of articles on bulk quantity packet and samples and also on samples sent to FSL, the conscious possession of the appellant-Vinay Kumar on the open place was not proved. The property deposited in the Malkhana of the police station was not re-sealed with the seal of in-charge of the police station and the destruction of the property as per procedure after obtaining the order from the court was not proved to be disposed of as per procedure. The property deposited in the Malkhana of the police station was not re-sealed with the seal of in-charge of the police station and the destruction of the property as per procedure after obtaining the order from the court was not proved to be disposed of as per procedure. The property-poppy straw was not sent for disposal to Drug Disposal Committee or high level Drug Disposal Committee and no certificate about disposal of the property was produced. In these circumstances, appellants were not liable to be convicted. 20. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, this appeal succeeds and both the appellants are acquitted from the charges under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The appellant-Shambhu be released, if not required in any other offence and bail bond of the appellant-Vinay Kumar is hereby discharged. The amount of fine, if deposited by the appellants be returned to them. Hence, ordered accordingly.