JUDGMENT I.M. Quddusi, J 1. Appellant-State of C.G. has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 20.7.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) Jagdalpur (CG) in Special Case No.29/08, acquitting the respondents herein from the charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.04.2008 at 16.00 hrs in front of the Police Station Keshkaal, the police were checking the vehicles and during that process they stopped an unnumbered Tata Sumo vehicle in which two persons namely Santosh Singh & Raju Singh were travelling. On being asked about the articles kept in the said vehicle, they told that the same is cannabis. Thereafter Constable Omprakash after issuing notices to the witnesses went to bring weighing instrument. Before making search, the respondents-accused were given a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act asking them whether they wanted to have search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused persons, in writing, opted for search by the police and therefore at 16.00 hrs they were searched by the police in presence of the witnesses. On searching Tata Sumo vehicle, the police had recovered 8 numbers of jute bags containing cannabis. The accused persons have also searched the police personnel but did not find any incriminating thing. On recovery of aforesaid cannabis from the said bags, at about 16.45 hrs. 25 gram each in 16 packets were separated from each bag vide Ex.P-7 for sample and sealed on the spot itself. Thereafter, at 17.00 hrs. weighment was done wherein total 63 kilogram of contraband was found. The accused persons have been taken into custody vide Ex.P-12 & 13 and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-21. Seized cannabis and the accused persons were brought to the police station where the offence was registered against them vide Ex.P-23 and the seized cannabis was deposited in the Maalkhana. Thereafter, report of the proceedings (Ex.P-25) was prepared and intimation was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer (P). Kondagaon. Statements of the witnesses were recorded on the spot. Seized article was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. On the analysis of the samples the chemical examiner gave the report (Ex.P-28) in which he confirmed that contents of the samples seized and sealed to be cannabis. 3. Kondagaon. Statements of the witnesses were recorded on the spot. Seized article was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. On the analysis of the samples the chemical examiner gave the report (Ex.P-28) in which he confirmed that contents of the samples seized and sealed to be cannabis. 3. After completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was presented in the concerned Court against the accused persons under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. The Special Court framed charge against the accused persons under the said section. The accused persons abjured their guilt and sought trial. The prosecution in order to establish the charges against the accused persons examined seven witnesses in all. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence & false implication. 4. Upon completion of trial, the Special Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons from the charge on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against them. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the prosecution had examined seven witnesses in all, out of which, four are police personnel and three are independent witness. 7. Santlal (PW-1) & Sheikh Hanif (PW-2), who were seizure witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. 8. Hariram Sodhi (PW-3), Head Constable No.587 has stated in his statement that at the relevant time he was posted as In-charge, Maalkhana, Police Station Keshkaal. On 10.4.2008 at about 5.30 p.m., A.S.I. Shri A.R. Bhuarya handed over him the seized articles in a sealed condition whereupon he deposited the same in the Maalkhana after making entry in this regard in the maalkhana register at Sr. No.19 (Ex.P-17). In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that the time mentioned at 'A to A' part of Ex.P-17 is not appearing in Ex.P-17 (C) i.e. copy of Ex.P-17 and reason for the same is that the time was mentioned on it afterwards. He has further admitted that in Ex.P-17 it has nowhere mentioned that the jute bags were in sealed condition. He has further stated that there is no mention in Ex.P-17 about the material kept in 16 packets in the quantity of 25 gm each. He has further admitted that in Ex.P-17 it has nowhere mentioned that the jute bags were in sealed condition. He has further stated that there is no mention in Ex.P-17 about the material kept in 16 packets in the quantity of 25 gm each. He has further stated it is true that there was no separate marking on the jute bags as well as 16 packets of sample. On 2.4.2008 eight sealed packets had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. This witness has expressed his inability to tell about the symbol of the sample packets sent to the FSL and thereafter received from there. 9. Investigating Officer A.R. Bhuarya (PW-4) has stated in his statement that on 0.4.2008 he along with his staff was checking the vehicles in front of the police station. They had stopped an unnumbered sold Tata Sumo and upon inquiry the passengers travelling in it told their names as Raju Singh & Anup Singh, residents of Village Kotma, District Anuppur (MP). On being asked about the articles kept in the vehicle, they told that the same is cannabis. He has further stated that due to non-receipt of search warrant, he prepared the panchnama (Ex.P-2) at 15.15 hrs. Thereafter, at 15.50 hrs he served a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act on the accused persons and asked them to opt for searching by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. However, the accused persons consented in writing for their search by the police itself and accordingly at 16.00 hrs both the accused persons were searched in presence of the witnesses. On searching Tata Sumo vehicle, he found eight numbers of jute bags containing psychotropic substance. Both the accused persons searched the police party at 16.10 hrs. The contraband was seized at 16.20 hrs vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5). Samples of 25 gm each in 16 packets were taken out from the seized contraband at 16.45 hrs. The weighment of seized contraband was done by Ramesh Kumar at 17.00 hrs. Both the accused persons have been taken into custody at 17.27 & 17.30 hrs. He has further stated that at 17.30 hrs they returned to the police station and handed over the articles to M.C.M. The crime has been registered at 17.40 hrs. Report of entire proceedings was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer (P), Kondagaon vide Ex.P-25. Both the accused persons have been taken into custody at 17.27 & 17.30 hrs. He has further stated that at 17.30 hrs they returned to the police station and handed over the articles to M.C.M. The crime has been registered at 17.40 hrs. Report of entire proceedings was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer (P), Kondagaon vide Ex.P-25. Statements of the seizure witnesses namely Sheikh Rafique Khan & Santlal were recorded. The samples were sent to the FSL, Raipur on 12.4.2008 for examination. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that at various places there was overwriting or use of whitener. He has also admitted that prior to registration of crime he has put the Crime Number on various documents. This witness has also admitted that on various documents crime number has been mentioned prior to registration of the crime. He has further stated, it is true that the samples have been received by the FSL, Raipur on 16.4.2008 but he does not know that during this period i.e. 12th to 16th April, 2008 where the person concerned had kept the samples. He has further admitted that 'E to E' part of the seizure memos (Ex.P-10 & Ex.P-11) was added at the time of filing of charge sheet. 10. Constable No.168-Ashwini Kumar (PW-5) has stated in his statement that on 12.4.2008 the Station In-charge Shri J.R. Bhuarya directed him to go to Raipur and deposit the samples in the FSL, Raipur and accordingly on the same day he left for Raipur, however, 14th & 15th being holidays the samples could be deposited on 16.4.2008. 11. Ramesh Kumar (PW-6) has stated in his statement that on 10.4.2008 the police came to him and said that they have seized cannabis and he is required to weigh the same, whereupon he weighed the seized cannabis. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that after seizure of cannabis, the police brought it inside the police station and weighment was done in the police station itself. At that time no independent witness was present thereof. He has further stated that at the time when he reached the police station, the accused persons were kept in the lock-up. 12. Head Constable Ramesh Naag (PW-6) has stated in his statement that at Sr. At that time no independent witness was present thereof. He has further stated that at the time when he reached the police station, the accused persons were kept in the lock-up. 12. Head Constable Ramesh Naag (PW-6) has stated in his statement that at Sr. No.7 of the dispatch-receipt register (Ex.P-29) he recorded the information received from the office of the S.D.O. (P), Kondagaon regarding transportation of cannabis in white colour unnumbered Sumo vehicle. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that he has not mentioned the time on the document on which he entered the said information. He has further stated that had the report of entire proceedings been sent by the Police Station Keshkaal to the office of the S.D.O. (P), Kondagaon, the same must have been entered in the register. 13. On marshalling of evidence as aforesaid, we have found that the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile and thus there is no independent witness to corroborate the seizure. The police had first searched the respondents herein and thereafter the police was searched by the respondents, whereas under the NDPS Act it is provided otherwise. Ramesh Naag (PW-6) has stated in his evidence that entire report of the proceedings has not been sent by the Police Station Keshkaal. From the statement of PW-6 it is clear that weighment of contraband was done in the police station and at that time the respondents herein were in the lock-up. The Maalkhana In-charge has admitted in his statement that the time of depositing of seized contraband was not mentioned in the maalkhana register (Ex.P-17). The Investigating Officer has admitted that prior to registration of the crime number has been mentioned in the various documents. He has also admitted that in various documents overwriting has been done or by the use of whitener corrections have been made in the documents prior to filing of charge sheet. Seizure of alleged narcotic substance is shown to have been made on 10.4.2008, the samples taken from the seized substance were sent to the FSL on 12.4.2008 and the same were deposited in the FSL on 16.4.2008. But it is not clear that from 12.4.2008 till their deposit in the FSL on 16.4.2008, as to where the samples were kept or were handled by how many people and in what ways. 14. But it is not clear that from 12.4.2008 till their deposit in the FSL on 16.4.2008, as to where the samples were kept or were handled by how many people and in what ways. 14. In view of the above, it appears to us that in the absence of any independent corroboration such discrepancies do not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution case. 15. Apart from above, we have also noticed that on search being conducted by PW-3 Shri A.R. Bhuarya, Assistant Sub Inspector, the cannabis was recovered from the respondents herein and on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. Therefore, he being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case, but he carried on with the investigation, examined the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and filed the charge sheet against the respondents. Though, there is no specific statutory bar, but as a matter of healthy practice, it would not be conducive to fair and impartial investigation for the complainant himself to be an investigating officer. 16. In the result, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the trial Court is on sound principles of law, which do not call for interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.