ORDER : 1. Leave granted. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Indore acquitting the respondents of an offence punishable under Section 8/18(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The trial court had, while convicting the respondent, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and besides payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. In default of payment of they were required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. 2. In appeal, the High court has reversed the conviction and acquitted the respondents primarily on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the destruction of the seized opium as per the procedure prescribed under Section 52(A) of the Act before the conclusion of the trial. The High Court also held that since the seized contraband had not been produced before the trial court, the seizure itself was not proved by the prosecution. 3. When the matter came up before us, our attention was drawn by Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellants to a Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 dated 13th June, 1989 that prescribed the procedure for sampling, seizure, safe keeping, disposal of the seized contraband. Mr. Chaudhary, submitted that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 is being followed throughout the country and that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India has in terms of a Circular dated 23.02.2011 impressed upon the Chief Secretary to the concerned police heads to ensure that the instructions given and the procedure prescribed in the Sanding Order is strictly adhered to. 4. We have been taken through the contents of the Standing Order also which prescribes the procedure for search, disposal and destruction of the seized contraband. We are not, however, very sure whether the said procedure is being followed as it ought to be. The pilferage of the contraband and its return to the market place for circulation is, in our opinion, a major hazard against which the system must guard at all cost if necessary by making suitable changes where ever the same are called for. Before any exercise to that end is undertaken it is necessary to examine whether the procedure is being followed in letter and spirit. 5. Before any exercise to that end is undertaken it is necessary to examine whether the procedure is being followed in letter and spirit. 5. For that purpose in view we request Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae and identify if possible, by reference to the standing order and the available material, the weak links in the chain of the procedure of search, disposal or destruction of the narcotics and the remedial steps, if any, needed to plug the holes. To that extent we are inclined to enlarge the scope of this appeal for we are of the view that the hazardous nature of the substance seized in large quantities all over the country must not be let loose on the society because of human failure or failure of the system that is purported to have been put in place. 6. The Registry shall furnish to Mr. Sinha a complete set of the paper books with all the Annexures including the Standing Order and the Circular dated 23.02.2012, a copy whereof has been filed by Mr. Chaudhary in the course of the hearing today. The appeal shall then be listed for further hearing on 2.5.2012. A copy of the order may be furnished to Mr. Chaudhary and also Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha.