JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 30.09.2006, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in S.C. No. 8-K/VII/06, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Simranjit alias Sunny and another, acquitting the respondents herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the accused’ and denoted as A-1 and A-2, respectively, for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the NDPS Act’). 2. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case are that during the night intervening 3/4.10.2004, a police party headed by PW-9 Inspector/SHO Sanjeev Chauhan while on patrol duty was present at bus stand, Kangra. At about 11.15 PM they were proceeding from the in gate towards out gate of the bus stand, two boys were found standing near the police assistance room at the out gate. On seeing the police they ran towards Raj Hotel on the main road. Accordingly, the police party raised alarm, pursuant to which two persons came from the side of Abhi Vaishnav Bhojnalaya, who overpowered the aforesaid boys. In the meantime, PW-9 Inspector/SHO Sanjeev Chauhan also reached there alongwith other members of the police party. On enquiry the aforesaid persons, who had apprehended the aforesaid boys, disclosed their names as Sunil Sharma (PW-1), owner of Abhi Vaishnav Bhojnalaya and Santosh Kumar (PW-2), owner of Delhi Auto Service and PCO, besides giving their parentage and addresses. 3. On being confronted the aforesaid boys stated that they belong to Jalandhar and disclosed their names as Simranjit alias Sunny (A-1) and Prince Kumar alias Prince (A-2). They also revealed their parentage and addresses. However, they could not state any plausible reason for running away on seeing the police and were perplexed. There was frequent movement of VIPs in the area during those days owing to by-election to Guler assembly constituency. In such circumstances, presence of the accused was appearing to be suspect. Accordingly, the police conducted personal search of the accused in the presence of PW-1 Sunil Sharma and PW-2 Santosh Kumar apprehending that they might be carrying arms and ammunition. Consequently, a polythene bag containing nine small packets (iqfM;k) was recovered from the right side pocket of the grey colour pants worn by A1 Simranjit alias Sunny. Accordingly, the police conducted personal search of the accused in the presence of PW-1 Sunil Sharma and PW-2 Santosh Kumar apprehending that they might be carrying arms and ammunition. Consequently, a polythene bag containing nine small packets (iqfM;k) was recovered from the right side pocket of the grey colour pants worn by A1 Simranjit alias Sunny. Similarly, pursuant to personal search of A-2 Prince Kumar a paper bag containing five similar small packets (iqfM;k) was recovered from the right side pocket of the pants worn by A-2 Princie Kumar alias Prince. For the sake of convenience, both the accused shall hereinafter be referred to by their proper names. On being asked about the contents of the recovered small packets, the accused disclosed that it was smack. Accordingly, Sandeep Ohri (PW-3), proprietor, Ohri Jewellers, Kangra bazaar, was called to the spot alongwith weighing machine. On weighing the contraband recovered from the possession of A-1 Simranjit Singh was found to be 10.080 grams, out of which two samples weighing 1.270 grams and 1.190 grams were drawn and put in separate empty match boxes, which in turn were put in a cloth parcel, which sealed with seal bearing impression ‘A’. The remaining contraband alongwith polythene bag was also separately sealed in a cloth parcel with the same seal. Seal impression was prepared separately. The contraband recovered from A-1 Simranjit Singh alongwith samples was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-3/A. 4. Similarly, the contraband recovered from A-2 Prince Kumar was also weighed and found to be 5.410 grams, out of which two samples weighing 1.220 and 1.170 grams were drawn. The samples and remaining contraband were also similarly dealt with and sealed with the same seal. However, another seal impression was also prepared on a separate piece of cloth. The contraband recovered from A-2 Prince Kumar alongwith samples was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-3/B. Seal used during the proceedings was handed over to PW-1 Sunil Sharma. 5. Rukka Ex,PW-6/A was sent to the police station for registration of a case, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-9/C was registered. The accused were arrested vide memos Ex.PW-8/A and Ex,PW-8/B and as desired by them their nephew and father, respectively were informed accordingly. Site plan Ex,PW-8/C was prepared and special report Ex.PW-5/A was also sent. 6. 5. Rukka Ex,PW-6/A was sent to the police station for registration of a case, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-9/C was registered. The accused were arrested vide memos Ex.PW-8/A and Ex,PW-8/B and as desired by them their nephew and father, respectively were informed accordingly. Site plan Ex,PW-8/C was prepared and special report Ex.PW-5/A was also sent. 6. The samples drawn out of the contraband recovered from the accused were sent for chemical examination to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh and report Ex.PA was obtained, which is to the following effect:- “RESULTS OF THE EXAMINATION Various laboratory tests such as colour tests, chromatographic analysis and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrophotometeric Analysis were carried out with the exhibit-A-1 & B-1 for the detection of diacetylmorphine (Heroin) in them. The results thus obtained have been analysed as given below: i. Diacetylmorphine (Heroin) has been detected in the exhibits-A-1 & B-1. ii. The percentage of diacetylmorphine (Heroin) has been found 38.1% in exhibitA-1 & 38.3% in exhibit B-1 respectively.” 7. On completion of investigation the accused were sent up to face trial. When charged, they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. It examined nine witnesses in all. 8. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the learned trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. While admitting their presence at bus stand, Kangra, they have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and instead have pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they have not led any evidence in defence. 9. On conclusion of the trial and after hearing the parties the learned trial court proceeded to acquit the accused, as already noticed. 10. We have heard the learned Sr. Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the records. 11. According to the prosecution it was a case of chance recovery. On seeing the police both the accused ran away. Accordingly, alarm was raised, pursuant to which they were overpowered by PW-1 Sunil Sharma and PW-2 Santosh Kumar, who were coming from the opposite direction. In the meantime, PW-9 Inspector/SHO Sanjeev Chauhan also reached there alongwith other members of the police party. The further case of the prosecution is that on being confronted, the accused, who where perplexed could not state any plausible reason for running away on seeing the police. In the meantime, PW-9 Inspector/SHO Sanjeev Chauhan also reached there alongwith other members of the police party. The further case of the prosecution is that on being confronted, the accused, who where perplexed could not state any plausible reason for running away on seeing the police. Since it was night time and there was frequent movement of VIPs in the area during those days owing to by-election to Guler Assembly constituency, the conduct of the accused raised suspicion that they might be carrying arms and ammunitions. Consequently, their personal search was carried out leading to recovery of the contraband from them. 12. Two independent witnesses namely PW-1 Sunil Sharma and PW-2 Santosh Kumar were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the search and seizure. In addition thereto PW-3 Sandeep, a jeweler, was also associated during the proceedings for weighing the recovered contraband and the samples drawn out of it. PW-8 SI Mohinder Singh Gill and PW-9 Inspector Sanjeev Chauhan are the two official eye witnesses to the occurrence being members of the police party, which was headed by the latter. 13. Both PW-1 Sunil Sharma and PW-2 Santosh Kumar have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Though during cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, both of them have stated that they are matriculate and have admitted their signatures on seizure memos Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B, yet whereas PW-1 Sunil Sharma has volunteered to state that “when I proceeded to my home and stopped my scooter near Police Station Kangra they told me that they have arrested some person and I was asked to affix my signatures on papers which were already written. I had read the papers and thereafter placed my signatures”, according to PW-2 Santosh Kumar “when two police men came to my shop and asked me to put my signatures on the papers. I put my signatures on those papers”. However, he has denied that he had gone through the contents of those papers. PW-1 Sunil Sharma has also denied that “the seal was handed over to me by the police after use”. I put my signatures on those papers”. However, he has denied that he had gone through the contents of those papers. PW-1 Sunil Sharma has also denied that “the seal was handed over to me by the police after use”. Thus, though the explanation put forth by PW-1 Sunil Sharma and PW-2 Santosh Kumar as to the circumstances under which they had signed seizure memos Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B cannot be taken without a pinch of salt, yet the fact remains that their depositions though being tainted on this count, do not go to support the case of the prosecution regarding the search and seizure leading to recovery of the alleged contraband from the accused. Above all, in any case, both of them were mere chance witnesses. 14. Against the foregoing background the testimony of PW-3 Sandeep, who was called by the police along with weighing machine, whose status is also that of an independent witness assumes significance. A perusal of special report Ex.PW-5/B and rukka Ex. PW-6/A would go to show that the search and seizure leading to recovery of the alleged contraband from the accused had already taken place at about 11.15 PM, where after PW-3 Sandeep was telephonically called to the spot along with weighing machine. A compete and harmonious reading of his statement in chief examination gives an impression as if he was also an eye witness to the search and seizure. The relevant portions of the statement in this regard are as under:- “I reached there at 12.00-12.15 A.M. Both the accused present in the court were in along with police, were also there. Santosh and Sunil were also present there. Sunil Sharma is running Abhi Bhojnalya and Santosh is running Automobile parts shop. Accused disclosed their name to be Simranjeet and Prince. Simran was found in possession of nine small packets. The small packets were containing some powder. All the nine packets were found to be 10.080 Grams and Prince accused was also found having five small packets which were found on weighing to be 5.410 Grams.” “The parcel Ex.P3 on opening three small packets (pudia) Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 which are same which were recovered from the person of Prince accused. On opening the second parcel Ex.P1 small packets (Pudia) Ex. P10, Ex.P11, Ex.P12, Ex.P13, Ex.P-14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are the same which were recovered from the person of Simranjeet.” 15. On opening the second parcel Ex.P1 small packets (Pudia) Ex. P10, Ex.P11, Ex.P12, Ex.P13, Ex.P-14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are the same which were recovered from the person of Simranjeet.” 15. This aspect of the matter casts a serious doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution case. Still further in cross examination he has stated that “the small packets were lying on the table where police and accused were present in hotel on my arrival”. This part of his deposition is in utter negation to the version stated by him in chief examination. To the contrary PW-9 Sanjeev Chauhan has stated in the opening lines of cross examination that “weight of the contraband was conducted outside Abhi Dhaba”. In case the small packets containing the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused were lying on the table in the hotel when PW-3 Sandeep arrived, how could he say as to which of the small packets were recovered from A-1 Simranjeet and A-2 Prince, respectively, as stated by him in chief examination, as re-produced hereinabove. According to him, he was not knowing the accused earlier, whose names were disclosed to him by the police. Even during the trial he was unable to say that out of the accused who was Simranjeet and who was Prince. He has also admitted that none of the parcels produced in the court on the date he was making statement, bears his signatures. 16. Now remains to be considered the evidence of the official eye witnesses namely PW-8 SI Mohinder Gill and PW-9 Inspector Sanjeev Chauhan. Both of them have stated that NCB Form was prepared on the spot, but the same has not been brought on record. It goes without saying that NCB Form is required to be prepared in triplicate. It is an important piece of evidence, as it contains the facsimile of the seal used by the police during the proceedings. Non-production of NCB Form is a serious matter and cannot be lightly overlooked. 17. There is no credible link evidence in this case. PW-4 HC Suresh Kumar has stated that in the year 2004 he was posted as MHC Police Station, Kangra. The case property comprising of six parcels sealed with seal bearing impression ‘A’ along with NCB From and sample seals was deposited with him by the then Addl. SHO Mohinder Singh Gill (PW-8). PW-4 HC Suresh Kumar has stated that in the year 2004 he was posted as MHC Police Station, Kangra. The case property comprising of six parcels sealed with seal bearing impression ‘A’ along with NCB From and sample seals was deposited with him by the then Addl. SHO Mohinder Singh Gill (PW-8). However, as already observed, the NCB Form has not seen the light of the day. He has further stated that on 6.4.2004, he had sent two samples along with sample seals to C.T.L Kandaghat, but, these were not received by the said laboratory and instead it was directed that the same be deposited in C.F.S.L Chandigarh. Accordingly, the samples along with NCB Form and sample seals were sent by PW-4 to C.F.S.L Chandigarh through HHC Malkiat Singh, who had died by the time the trial commenced. The way the case property was entered in the relevant register and was not even deposited in the malkhana and the manner in which statement in cross examination of this witness to this effect has been recorded, which is re-produced below, leaves much to be desired:- “Correct that at Sr. No. 259/04 the date is 4-10-2004. Correct that next entry at Sr. No. 260/04 pertains to F.I.R No. 306/04 dated 3rd of October, 2004 only pertaining to case in hand date of deposit was recorded against Sr. No. in addition to the Sr. No. given and the column which was mend for giving the date has been left blank. Correct that the case property remained with me from 4th October, to 7th of October, 2004. This case property was never handed over the Moharar Malkhana nor I have made any endorsement in the signature, time and date of deposit of the case property in the Malkhana. No written document was received from the C.T.L. Kandhaghat regarding refusal to receive the case property for test. Correct that in my statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.D2 it has not been recorded as to who handed over the case property to me.” 18. PW-9 Sanjeev Chauhan has admitted during cross examination that the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused was weighed along with the paper packings in which the same was contained. Though the packets recovered from the respective accused were kept separately, no identification mark was put on any of the packets. PW-9 Sanjeev Chauhan has admitted during cross examination that the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused was weighed along with the paper packings in which the same was contained. Though the packets recovered from the respective accused were kept separately, no identification mark was put on any of the packets. Furthermore representative samples were not drawn from the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused and instead two small packets each were taken out as samples. These procedural lapses also go to affect the prosecution case to some extent. 19. PW-5 HC Subhash Chand, PW-6 constable Supinder Singh and PW-7 HHC Ramesh Chand are formal police witnesses of investigation. Special report Ex.PW-5/B was sent through PW-7 HHC Ramesh Chand and was received by PW-5 HC Subhash Chand. PW-6 constable Supinder Singh had taken rukka Ex.PW-6/A from the spot to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-9/C was recorded. 20. Since, as already observed, it was a case of chance recovery at a public place, neither Section 50 of the NDPS Act nor provisions of Section 100 Cr.PC were applicable and as such the observations to the contrary made by the learned trial Judge vide paras 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment were not called for. Similarly, since the search and seizure in question was carried out by PW-9 Inspector Sanjeev Chauhan, who himself was the Station House Officer, there was no necessity to re-seal the case property and the observation to the contrary in para 8 of the judgment was also not called for. 21. In view of the above, we do not see any lawful cause or basis for any interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2006 at the hands of this court, though we do not subscribe to some of the grounds pressed into service by the learned trial Judge in support of the judgment, as noticed hereinabove. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being without any merit.