Judgment :- 1. The appellant stands convicted for offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven months and to pay a fine of Rs.11,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months by judgment dated 05.12.2007 in S.c.No.26 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the sole accused therein has come forward with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- On 02.08.2002, P.W.1, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police, N.I.B. C.I.D., Chennai had an information from an informant that a person carrying ganja would be moving near Kodungaiyur in Chennai. He recorded the said information and forwarded the same to his official superior namely, the Inspector of Police and got his permission to proceed to the spot. Accordingly, he proceeded along with the police party consisting of P.W.3 and another and went near the place of occurrence. While he was waiting along with police party at the spot, he found the appellant moving with a white gunny bag containing some substances. P.W.1 intercepted him at about 08.30 a.m. in the presence of P.W.3 and another. He complied with Section 50 of the NDPS Act by inviting the attention of the appellant that he had right to be taken before the Magistrate for personal search. The appellant told him that it was not necessary and instead, P.W.1 himself could do the search. The same was accordingly recorded. Thereafter, P.W.1 searched the gunny bag in the presence of witnesses and found that it contained 7 kgs of ganja. He called two person by name (1) Rajendran and (2) Somu as witnesses. But, they declined. Therefore, in the presence of P.W.3 and another, he conducted a search and thereafter, he took two samples of ganja weighing 50 grams each. Then, he kept the sample ganja in two packets sealing them with N.I.B. seal. Similarly, the remaining ganja weighing 6.900 Kgs was kept in the very same gunny back tied with a thread. Thereafter, P.W.1 affixed N.I.B. seal on the same by affixing labels. The appellant also signed the labels on the sample packets as well as the gunny bag. Then, he kept the sample ganja in two packets sealing them with N.I.B. seal. Similarly, the remaining ganja weighing 6.900 Kgs was kept in the very same gunny back tied with a thread. Thereafter, P.W.1 affixed N.I.B. seal on the same by affixing labels. The appellant also signed the labels on the sample packets as well as the gunny bag. Then, he recovered the above three items under Ex.P.3 mahazar in the presence of the above two police witnesses. He gave a copy of the mahazar to the appellant. Then, he arrested the appellant at 9.30 a.m. and brought him to the police station at about 10.30 p.m. Thereafter, he registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2002 for offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act. Ex.P.6 is the FIR. Thereafter, he prepared Form-95 for sending the seized articles to the court. The arrest of the appellant was duly intimated to the wife of the appellant. Then, P.W.1 prepared a detailed report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act and forwarded the same to P.W.4. 3. P.W.4 on receipt of the FIR and other documents, proceeded to investigate the case. He examined P.Ws.1 and 3 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He forwarded the appellant along with the properties to the nearest Magistrate for remand. The properties were returned by the Magistrate with a direction to produce the same before the Special Court. Accordingly, he produced the properties along with Form-95 to the Special Court on 15.09.2002. He made a request to the Special Court to forward one of the samples for examination by chemical analyst. 4. P.W.2 was then working a Assistant Scientific Officer–Grade II in the Forensic Science Department, Chennai. On 05.09.2002, he received the sample packet relating to this case. He conducted examination and found that the sample is ganja. To that effect, he submitted a report under Ex.P.11. Subsequently, P.W.4 completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the Special Court. 5. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act . The appellant denied the charges. In order to prove the guilty of the appellant, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 , exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.12 and produced three material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. 5. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act . The appellant denied the charges. In order to prove the guilty of the appellant, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 , exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.12 and produced three material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating materials placed by way of evidence, he denied the same. He pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. He further stated that he was not at all arrested at the place as alleged and he never carried the contraband as it was alleged. He further stated that he was taken to the police station where using his illiteracy his left hand thumb impression was obtained in all the documents. Having considered all the materials, the trial court convicted the appellant as stated above. That is how, the appellant is, now, before this court with this criminal appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I have also perused the records carefully. 7. Among other grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant would mainly focus his argument on the ground that non examination of the independent witness in this case create doubt in the case of the prosecution. He would further point out that it is not as though there was no independent witness available at all at the alleged place of occurrence. When that be so, in the absence of any explanation as to why no independent witness was examined, according to the learned counsel, it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of police officers alone. The learned counsel would further contend that though it is stated that on the contraband as well as sample packets, the seals of N.I.B. Police was affixed at the place of occurrence, the properties were very much in the custody of the Inspector of Police till 15.09.2002 and the seals were also after all in the hands of the Inspector of Police. In the absence any explanation as to why the properties were not forwarded to the court forthwith and in the absence of any evidence that the sample packets and contraband were not tampered with in the meanwhile, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution case should have been doubted. 8. The learned counsel would further contend that though it is stated that the properties were forwarded to the Special Court on 05.09.20202, neither there is any document that the properties were actually received by the Special Judge on 05.09.2002 nor there has been any endorsement made on Ex.P.7, Form-95 to indicate that the properties were received by the Special Judge on 05.09.2002. This coupled with the fact that the properties as well as the seals were all along in the custody of the Inspector of Police would go to show that the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant would pray for acquittal. 9. But, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State would stoutly oppose this appeal. According to him, all the mandatory provisions as well as directive provisions have been complied with by the prosecution. He would further submit that the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are very minor in nature and on that score, the prosecution case cannot be doubted in any manner. He would further submit that the trial court has considered all the points raised by the appellant and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence and, therefore, the judgement of the trial court does not require any interference at the hands of this court. 10. I have considered the rival submissions. 11. Admittedly, no independent witness has been examined. P.Ws.1 and 3 have spoken to about the alleged occurrence. Admittedly, they are police officials. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that simply because P.Ws.1 and 3 happen to be the police officials, their evidence should be rejected. What all that he would point out is that when there were independent witnesses, in the absence of explanation as to why no such independent witness was taken and was not examined before the court, the evidence of these police officials should be doubted. I find every force in the said argument. What all that he would point out is that when there were independent witnesses, in the absence of explanation as to why no such independent witness was taken and was not examined before the court, the evidence of these police officials should be doubted. I find every force in the said argument. I am also not of the view that the evidences of P.W.1 and 3 are to be rejected on the sole ground that they are police officials. A close reading of the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that there were number of persons at the place of occurrence. But, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that he called only two persons to be witnesses, but, they declined. When that be so, he could have called the other persons who were also admittedly present at the place of occurrence to be witnesses. But, he has not explained as to why, he has not called anybody else to be witness. It is in these circumstances more particularly, because the provisions of the NDPS Act are very stringent and foisting a false case is not too difficult, I have to hold that the non examination of the independent witnesses present at the scene of occurrence will surely create a doubt in the case of the prosecution. 12. Now, coming to the second contention of the learned counsel, P.W.4 has stated that he forwarded the appellant for remand on 02.08.2002 along with contraband and sample packets accompanied by Form -95. Of course, one is able to find an endorsement on the Form-95 as follows:- "Produce before the E.C. Court on the next working day." This endorsement was admittedly made by the learned Magistrate, who remanded the appellant. But, the properties were thereafter produced before the Special Court only on 05.09.2002. It is not the case of the prosecution that the next working day for the Special Court was only on 05.09.2002. It is not at all explained to the Court as to why the contraband and sample packets were kept in the custody of the Inspector of Police till 05.09.2002 i.e., for more than one month. The absence of any explanation regarding the same, again strengthens the doubt in the case of the prosecution. 13. Nextly, the contraband as well as the seal of N.I.B. were in the custody of the Inspector of Police. The absence of any explanation regarding the same, again strengthens the doubt in the case of the prosecution. 13. Nextly, the contraband as well as the seal of N.I.B. were in the custody of the Inspector of Police. Therefore, it is not too difficult to tamper with the sample packets which were allegedly sealed at the place of occurrence. In the absence of any evidence from P.W.4 that the contraband and the sample packets were in his safe custody without tampering, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is possibility for tampering gains force. 14. Nextly, though it is the evidence of P.W.4 that the contraband and the sample packets were produced before the Special Court on 05.09.2002, I do not find any endorsement in the Form-95 by the Court. The seals and the other endorsements on the slip were found in tact when they were all produced. There is no endorsement to show that the properties were received by the Special Court at any point of time. In stead, there is only entry on the back of Form-95 just above the signature of one Mr. M.Ravikumar, the Head Constable made on 05.09.2002 wherein he has received the balance property and the copy. It is not explained to the court what is balance property and what is copy and what was given to him and by whom. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. Apart from that , a close reading of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 would go to show that Section 55 of the NDPS Act was not at all followed. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the contraband and the sample packets were sealed by the officer in-charge of the police station before whom the appellant as well as the contraband and sample packets were produced. Though Section 55 of the NDPS Act is only directive in nature, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that for that matter the said provision cannot be simply ignored by the investigating officer. In the absence of explanation as to why Section 55 of the Act was not at all complied with, the investigation should be held to be faulty on which basis it is not safe to convict the appellant [ vide Gurubax Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 SCC (Cri) 426] . 15. In the absence of explanation as to why Section 55 of the Act was not at all complied with, the investigation should be held to be faulty on which basis it is not safe to convict the appellant [ vide Gurubax Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 SCC (Cri) 426] . 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecuting agency has not come forward with clean hands and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts as required under law. For these reasons, I find it difficult to concur with the findings of the trial court. 16. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Fine , if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail Bond executed by the appellant shall stand discharged.