JUDGMENT Banerjee, J. 1. ON March 3, 2004 one Rittika Devi was traveling by Down Rajdhani Express in Coach No. A-2 (AC II Tyre, Berth No. 34). She claimed to be traveling with her husband. When the ticket collector approached her for verification of her ticket she told that the ticket was with her husband. The ticket collector disbelieved and demanded fare as well as penalty. The lady could not pay. She was handed over to the GRPF at New Jalpaiguri Station. According to the ticket collector, the lady was having two VIP suitcases, one VCD cartoon and one leather bag. The leather bag contained her wearing apparels and other belongings whereas other three containers had Ganja weighing 18 kgs. The lady was arrested. The VIP suit case and VCD cartoons were confiscated. Samples were drawn and sent for chemical examination. The result of the test was positive. She was proceeded with for the offence committed under Sections 20/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. 2. THE lady pleaded innocence and opted to be tried. Altogether six witnesses were produced by the prosecution. PW 1 was a ticket collector. According to him, he was posted at New Jalpaiguri Railway Station on the relevant date when he handed over the lady and her belongings as stated above to the GRPF. According to the PW 1 they tried to release her, however, the girl could not pay. PW 2 was a Rickshaw puller. He was a seizure witness. He deposed that while he was at GRPF office he saw the girl with some suit cases. He put his LTI (Left Thumb Impression) on a paper. He could not tell about the contents of the said paper. PW 2 was declared hostile. 3. PW 3 was a constable working under GRPF. He along with another constable Sri Arun Sarkar was on duty in Down Rajdhani Express. They boarded at New Cooch Behar. After crossing Dhupguri Police Station they came to know that one lady passenger was found without ticket within the compartment. According to him, the lady carried two VIP suitcases and one cartoon VCD including a leather bag containing her wearing apparels. 4. PW 4 Arun Sarkar corroborated his fellow colleague PW 3 Prasad Ray Constable. After crossing Dhupguri Police Station they came to know that one lady passenger was found without ticket within the compartment. According to him, the lady carried two VIP suitcases and one cartoon VCD including a leather bag containing her wearing apparels. 4. PW 4 Arun Sarkar corroborated his fellow colleague PW 3 Prasad Ray Constable. PW 5 Rinchan Bhutia the Sub-Inspector, GRPF received the written complaint from Sri Goutam Sarkar CTTI and drew the formal FIR on the basis of the said written complaint. Sri Goutam Sarkar handed over the lady to him along with her belongings as stated above. PW 6 was the Investigating Officer. He perused the written complaint and seizure list. He sent sample packets for chemical examination and, thereafter, collected the chemical examination report which was marked as Exhibit 4. The accused was examined by the learned Judge under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She admitted that she could not produce ticket before the ticket collector. She, however, categorically denied that the luggage except the leather bag containing her wearing apparels belonged to her. Question No.5 and the answer given by the appellant are put below :- "Q. 5. It transpires from P. W. 1,3 and 4 that two VIP suitcases, a cartoon and a leather bag containing clothing were recovered from you - What do you have to say in this regard ? A.5. The bag full of clothings is mine and the others are not." The learned Judge held her guilty of the offence and sentence her ten years coupled with a fine of Rs. One lakh and in default further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The lady is in custody since her arrest on March 03, 2004 and she is at present languishing in the correctional home suffering sentence since imposed upon her. 5. BEING aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal, 6. WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. WE perused the evidence as well as the judgment of the Court below. Few questions we find, although relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the present case were not addressed. The lady was travelling by Rajdhani Express, one of the premier trains of our country. It is difficult to conceive that a lady along with her belongings could travel in Rajdhani Express without a ticket by occupying a reserved berth. Few questions we find, although relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the present case were not addressed. The lady was travelling by Rajdhani Express, one of the premier trains of our country. It is difficult to conceive that a lady along with her belongings could travel in Rajdhani Express without a ticket by occupying a reserved berth. When the lady was asked to show her ticket she pointed out to her husband. It did not come in evidence whether the ticket collector consulted the reservation chart to find out whether there was any actual booking in the name of the lady and her husband or not. The evidence is silent on that point. 7. THERE was one more serious issue which was not addressed. The lady was confronted while occupying the coach. According to the ticket collector, she was found carrying two brief cases and one cartoon containing Ganja which was subsequently found out. No fellow passengers came to support the prosecution story. 8. THERE is nothing on record to show that the said belongings were being carried by the lady herself. THERE were two seizure witnesses. One of them did not come forward to support the prosecution story. One being a Rickshaw Puller, although tendered his evidence, was declared hostile. We find from the written complaint Exhibit that the GRPS arrested the lady on being handed over by the ticket collector along with her alleged belongings. The goods were seized by the police on being handed over by the ticket collector. Five witnesses were named in the written complaint and all of them belonged to the Railways. None of them came forward to support the case of the prosecution. The learned Judge was of the view that the accused in reply to questions under Section 313, Cr.P.C. admitted that the VIP suit cases and the cartoon were handed over by Shri Sarkar and those contained Ganja. For the purpose of reconsideration we are to set out Question No. 10 and the Answer thereto :- Q.10. P. W. 5 has stated that, Mr. Sarkar handed him the accused, and the three bags with him, two suitcases and a cartoon (corrisfing of hemp). What do you have to say in this regard? A. 10. Yes, (he) took all things. With due respect to the learned Judge, answer was totally misconstrued. P. W. 5 has stated that, Mr. Sarkar handed him the accused, and the three bags with him, two suitcases and a cartoon (corrisfing of hemp). What do you have to say in this regard? A. 10. Yes, (he) took all things. With due respect to the learned Judge, answer was totally misconstrued. The learned Judge also recorded that the lady filed an application to the effect that she was travelling alone. We, however, do not find any such assertion made by the lady. We have examined the exhibits. We find that the seizure was done in the presence of one Pradjp Achhamoy, Home Guard and one Jiban Goswami. This was done by the Officer-in- Charge, New Jalpaiguri Station, GRPF. Pradip was a Home Guard whereas Jiban was the Rickshaw Puller who was declared hostile. Admittedly, no fellow passenger came forward to support the prosecution story. It is further significant that the Rickshaw Puller was a Thika labour of the GRPF at that point of time. In our considered view, the investigation of this case has been conducted perfunctorily. 9. FROM the evidence we find that it is al consistent story of the prosecution that the Ganja was wrapped in a blue colour polythin whereas the formal First Information Report (Exhibit. 2) says it was wrapped in red foil paper. On examination of the written complaint. (Exhibit 1) we find that the word "Ganja" was subsequently interpolated in different ink. 10. ON a sum total of the discrepancies as discussed above we are of the view that the evidence so came out during trial was not safe to write a judgment of conviction. The Judgment and Order impugned is set aside. The appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. Let her be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 11. THE copy of this judgment be sent to the correctional home where the appellant is suffering sentence. Bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties be discharged. 12. LET the lower Court records be sent down along with a copy of this judgment.