JUDGMENT Radhe Shyam Sharma, J. :- 1. Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 19-11-2008 passed by Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act, 1985'), Jagdalpur in Special N.D.P.S. Case No. 68/2007, the State has preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment, respondents Manoj Kumar and Manish Chouhan have been acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 13-9-2007, Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Darbha. At about 15:30 hrs, he received secret information from a Mukhbir that two persons were carrying Ganja in Tavera Chevrolet vehicle bearing registration No. CG 07 - 8874. He recorded the secret information vide Ex.P-1 and also entered it in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-18). Thereafter, he proceeded towards the spot along with the staff members and witnesses. The Mukhbir Suchana was transmitted to Superior Officer. At about 17:00 hours, the vehicle Tavera Chevrolet reached near Darbha Police Station. The vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 Manoj Kumar and respondent No. 2 Manish Chouhan was seating in the vehicle. The respondents were informed about their right under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 vide Ex.P-3 and consent of the respondents regarding search was recorded vide Ex.P-3 itself. The vehicle was searched. Ganja was recovered from jute bags kept in the vehicle vide Ex.P-5. After physical verification, it was found that the recovered article was Ganja and identification panchnama of the substance, i.e., Ganja was prepared vide Ex.P-6. Ganja was weighed and weight panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Ganja was seized vide Ex.P-10. In Jute bags A - 30 kg, B -15 kg, C - 20 kg, D - 9 kg, E - 7 kg, F - 10 kg, G - 9 Kg, H - 16 Kg, I - 12.5 Kg, J - 15.5 Kg, K - 15 Kg, L - 25 Kg, M - 29 Kg and N - 33 Kg, total 2 Quintals 46 Kilograms Ganja was found. 2-2 samples of 25-25 grams from each bag of the seized Ganja were prepared separately. Thereafter, Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-20) and arrested respondent No. 1 Manoj Kumar and respondent No. 2 Manish Chouhan vide Ex.P-13 and P-14, respectively. 2-2 samples of 25-25 grams from each bag of the seized Ganja were prepared separately. Thereafter, Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-20) and arrested respondent No. 1 Manoj Kumar and respondent No. 2 Manish Chouhan vide Ex.P-13 and P-14, respectively. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) came back to Police Station Darbha along with the respondents and the seized articles. He registered First Information Report (Ex.P-23) in the police station. The seized Ganja and its samples were kept in Malkhana. Action taken report was prepared and sent to the City Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur. The samples of the seized Ganja were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-25. Report (Ex.P-27) was received therefrom, in which, test of Ganja was found positive. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents in the Court of Special Judge under the Act, 1985, Jagdalpur, who conducted the trial and acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. 3. Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State argued that Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) properly complied with the provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the Act, 1985. The prosecution has fully established its case with sufficient evidence to hold the respondents guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of the Act, 1985. 4. On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Gupta and Shri Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Special N.D.P.S. Case No. 68/2007. 6. To hold the respondents guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985, the prosecution examined Gobaruram (PW-1), Rohit Yadav (PW-2), Suman (PW-3), Head Constable/Malkhana Moharrir Dinesh Kumar Sahu (PW-4), Neeraj Kumar Jain (PW-5) and Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6). The respondents did not examine any witness in their defence. 7. Now, we shall examine whether the provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with or not? 8. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that on 13-9-2007, he was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Darbha. The respondents did not examine any witness in their defence. 7. Now, we shall examine whether the provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 has been substantially complied with or not? 8. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that on 13-9-2007, he was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Darbha. At about 15:30 hours, he received information from the Mukhbir that two persons were carrying Ganja in Tavera Chevrolet vehicle bearing registration No. CG 07-8874. He recorded the Mukhbir Suchana vide Ex.P-1 and also entered it in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-18). Its copy is Ex.P-18C. He further deposed that he called witnesses and Mukhbir Suchana was transmitted to the superior officer. 9. In Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 2 SCC 513 , did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 692 , hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows: (a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1). (b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith information the same to the official superior. (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer, But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001. (see also Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2011) 8 SCC 130 )" 10. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that before proceeding towards the place of occurrence, he had sent the Mukhbir Suchana panchnama to his superior officer. The prosecution did not produce any letter which could indicate that the Mukhbir Suchana was sent to the superior officer. (see also Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana (2011) 8 SCC 130 )" 10. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that before proceeding towards the place of occurrence, he had sent the Mukhbir Suchana panchnama to his superior officer. The prosecution did not produce any letter which could indicate that the Mukhbir Suchana was sent to the superior officer. Even the prosecution did not examine the City Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur or any other employee of his office for proving that the Mukhbir Suchana was received in the office of the City Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur. In Ex.P-1, it is only mentioned that “ lwpuk ls ofj”B dks voxr djk;k tkrk gSA ” 11. Looking to the Mukhbir Suchana (Ex.P-1), it is not established that Mukhbir Suchana (Ex.P-1) was transmitted to the superior officer by Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6). In Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-18C), it is mentioned that :- “ tfj, eq[kfcj lwpuk izkIr gqbZ gS fd bl oDr ,d Vosjk psojysV ua- CG 07 8874 xkM+h ftlesa yxHkx 22&25 dh nks yM+ds lkeus lhaV ij cSBs gS esa voS/k :i ls lqdek dh vksj ls xkatk ysdj txnyiqj dh vksj tk jgs gSA lwpuk ys[kc) dh x;hA lwpuk ls tfj, VsyhQksu ¼eksckbZy½ Jheku~ CSP egksn; dks voxr djk;k x;kA fjiksVZ lwpuk vafdr gSA ” 12. We have gone through the evidence of Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6). It appears that he recorded the secret information received by him in writing but he did not send the information to any superior authority like City Superintendent of Police and he did not utter a single word that the secrete information was received in the office of City Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur. It is, therefore, clear that there was complete non-compliance of the provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. Hence, the finding recorded by the Special Judge in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment that Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) did not comply the mandatory provision of Section 42(2) of the Act, 1985 does not suffer from any perversity. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539 (supra), mere writing the secret information is not sufficient for compliance of provision of Section 42(2) of the Act, 1985. In the instant case, Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) did not comply with the provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539 (supra), mere writing the secret information is not sufficient for compliance of provision of Section 42(2) of the Act, 1985. In the instant case, Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) did not comply with the provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge that the prosecution did not comply with provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985. 14. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 Manoj Kumar and respondent No. 2 Manish Chouhan was sitting inside the vehicle. He further deposed that he searched the vehicle and recovered Ganja like substance in jute bags. Panchnama was prepared. Ganja was weighed and weight panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Ganja was seized vide Ex.P-10. In Jute bags A-30 kg, B-15kg, C-20kg, D-9kg, E.-7kg, F-10kg, G-9 Kg, H-16Kg, I-12.5 Kg, J-15.5 Kg, K-15 Kg, L-25 Kg, M-29 Kg and N-33 Kg, total 2 Quintals 46 Kilograms Ganja was found. 2-2 samples of 25-25 grams from each bag of the seized Ganja were prepared separately. Thereafter, Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-20) and arrested respondent No. 1 Manoj Kumar and respondent No. 2 Manish Chouhan vide Ex.P-13 and P-14, respectively. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) came back to Police Station Darbha along with the respondents and the seized articles. He registered First Information Report (Ex.P-23) in the police station. The seized Ganja and its samples were kept in Malkhana. 15. Head Constable Dinesh Kumar Sahu (PW-4) deposed that on 13-9-2007, he received the property for safe custody in Malkhana. In cross-examination, he deposed that it is true that in Malkhana register (Ex.P-17), it is not mentioned that articles A to N were bearing seal impression. It is also true that the property was not sealed. It is also true that he had not given acknowledgment regarding the receipt of the property. 16. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that he had sent the samples to FSL, Raipur vide Ex.P-25. Report (Ex.P-27) was received therefrom. He further deposed that it is true that the FSL, Raipur had returned the samples because the samples were not bearing specimen seal of police station. It is also true that Constable Sushil Kumar had returned back to the police station. Report (Ex.P-27) was received therefrom. He further deposed that it is true that the FSL, Raipur had returned the samples because the samples were not bearing specimen seal of police station. It is also true that Constable Sushil Kumar had returned back to the police station. Thereafter, he put specimen impression on the sample packets and again sent to the FSL, Raipur. It is also true that Head Constable/Malkhana Moharrir had not given any acknowledgment of the property handed over to him for safe custody. 17. In a case for offence under Section 20 of the Act, 1985, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish beyond the shadow of doubt that samples taken from the quantity of Ganja alleged to have been seized from the accused persons were sealed and specimen impression of the seal was prepared. It is also necessary for the prosecution to establish that at the time of entrustment of the sample in Malkhana, the Investigating Officer had affixed seal on the sample packets as also on the remaining quantity of Ganja. The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the seal was affixed on the sample packets not only at the time of seizure but also at the time of entrustment in the Malkhana till the samples are delivered at the FSL for their chemical analysis. 18. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Bher Singh (2009) 16 SCC 293 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, regarding failure by prosecution to prove that the seal on seized opium sample had remained intact till its examination in FSL, held that this being a mandatory requirement, no interference with High Court's order reversing the conviction is called for. 19. In the instant case, the prosecution examined officer-in-charge of Malkhana but he did not speak regarding seal impression. He specifically deposed that he had not entered in Malkhana register that the seal was affixed on the samples. 20. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) specifically deposed that the samples were not sealed, therefore, the FSL did not receive samples and returned them due to non-bearing of seal impression on the sample packets. In the FSL report (Ex.P-27), it is mentioned that 14 packets were received from Constable No. 763 Sushant, Police Station Darbha on 19-9-2007 in Ex.P-27, it is mentioned that " uequk lhy G.N. Singh 21. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that the articles were seized on the spot. In the FSL report (Ex.P-27), it is mentioned that 14 packets were received from Constable No. 763 Sushant, Police Station Darbha on 19-9-2007 in Ex.P-27, it is mentioned that " uequk lhy G.N. Singh 21. Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) deposed that the articles were seized on the spot. Ex.P-10 is seizure memo. Ex.P-10 does not bear specimen impression of the seal. In Malkhana register (Ex.P-17), it is not mentioned that the samples and the remaining property were sealed and the samples were kept in sealed condition. 22. The law is well settled that heavy burden lies on the prosecution to prove the sanctity of the samples that they were sealed after the seizure and preserved from the time of their preparation till they reach to the Forensic Science Laboratory and they were kept in Malkhana in sealed condition. Malkhana register (Ex.P-17) does not show that the samples and the seized property were handed over to the Malkhana Moharrir and kept in sealed condition. 23. In the instant case, the prosecution did not examine Constable No. 763 Sushant who handed over the samples to the FSL, Raipur for chemical examination. The prosecution should have produced the evidence of Constable No. 763 Sushant to prove that the endorsement of the seal on the samples were present, not only at the time of seizure, but also at the time of handing over the same to the Malkhana Moharrir and till the samples were delivered at the FSL. 24. In the instant case, Inspector G.N. Singh (PW-6) specifically admitted that the samples were returned for want of seal impression on the samples. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the FSL, Raipur had returned the samples because the samples were not bearing seal of the police station. 25. The prosecution has failed to prove that the samples were preserved sealed till they reached the FSL, Raipur, therefore, the FSL report (Ex.P-27) cannot be made basis for conviction of the respondents under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, 1985. 26. We have gone through the entire evidence available on record with a view to find out as to whether the views of the Special Judge were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. After going through the entire evidence, we do not find any compelling and substantial reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 26. We have gone through the entire evidence available on record with a view to find out as to whether the views of the Special Judge were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. After going through the entire evidence, we do not find any compelling and substantial reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. It is not the case in which the judgment may be said to be unreasonable or in which relevant and convincing material have been eliminated in the process of appreciation. 27. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge. The appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal, therefore, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.