JUDGMENT : PER COURT: 1. Both the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No.1 of 2012. The case was pending in Special Court, Parbhani constituted under the NDPS Act (hereinafter after referred to as “the Act”). The Appellants are convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to institution of the appeals can be sated as follows: Police Sub-Inspector Mr. Ballad was attached to Kotwali Police Station, Parbhani at the relevant time. On 7th April, 2012 at about 12:45 pm., he received information that one Trimbak Jadhav (Accused No. 2) was selling Ganja at his residential place. Mr. Ballad followed the procedure and effected raid at the residential place of accused Jadhav at about 05:00 pm. This accused was not present in the house, but one lady, Accused No.1 was present in the house. When search of this house was taken in the presence of this lady, 2.5 kilogram Ganja was recovered from this house. Three samples were separated from this Ganja and one sample was sent to CA office for confirmation. CA office gave report that the sample was of Ganja. Both the accused came to be arrested and chargesheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences. 3. When the charge was framed, both the accused denied the charge. They took the defence of total denial. Prosecution examined some Police Officers including Ballad, Inspector Deshmukh etc. One shop owner who had weighed the Ganja turned hostile, but other witnesses have given evidence against both the accused. The trial Court held that the prosecution has proved that both the accused were in possession of contraband, Ganja. 4. Mr. Ballad (PW-1) has given evidence that the information was received as against Trimbak Jadhav that he was selling Ganja in his house situated at Bhimnagar, Parbhani. He has deposed that he sought permission of District Superintendent of Police on phone and he also made written correspondence with S.P. for getting permission in writing. He has deposed that he requested Mr. Deshmukh, who was a gazetted officer, to give a company to the raiding party. The letter containing permission granted by the D.S.P. is at Exhibit – 33. The evidence in cross-examination of Ballad shows that inspector Deshmukh was his immediate official superior. He has deposed that he requested Mr. Deshmukh, who was a gazetted officer, to give a company to the raiding party. The letter containing permission granted by the D.S.P. is at Exhibit – 33. The evidence in cross-examination of Ballad shows that inspector Deshmukh was his immediate official superior. In view of these circumstances, the evidence with regard to authorization as required under Section 42 of the Act need not be considered more. However, the record with regard to authorization can be seen to ascertain as to whether there was compliance of other provisions of the Act including other part of Section 42. The material can also be seen to ascertain as to what was the exact information received by Ballad. 5. Exhibit – 32, letter written by Ballad to S.P. shows that the name of Accused No.2 was not given and even the place of his residence was not mentioned. It can be said that the permission was sought in respect of one unknown person of whom the address was not known. This circumstance cannot be ignored as there are many discrepancies in the evidence. The permission letter at Exhibit – 33, however, shows that the place where raid was to be effected, was mentioned. The place is described as a house from Bhimnagar. In Exhibit – 33 also the name of Accused No.2 was not mentioned. No time is mentioned in Exhibit – 32 and 33. Such record can be created at any time. This circumstances create doubt about this record. 6. A copy of the Station Diary in respect of few entries made on 7th April, 2012 is produced at Exhibit – 64. These entries were made from 15:10 hours to 16:50 hours in respect of present case. The trial Court did not call Station Diary to see all the entries made atleast on that day. All the entries with regard to the present case, were made one after other without making any entry in respect of other cases in Exhibit – 64. This circumstance also cannot be ignored. 7. Ballad (PW-1) has given evidence that when he reached the aforesaid house, only Accused No.1 was present in the house. He has deposed that he gave offer to Accused No.1 to get searched in the presence of gazetted officer. This circumstance also cannot be ignored. 7. Ballad (PW-1) has given evidence that when he reached the aforesaid house, only Accused No.1 was present in the house. He has deposed that he gave offer to Accused No.1 to get searched in the presence of gazetted officer. He has given evidence that he obtained consent of Accused No.1 on Exhibit – 34 and then search of the house was taken. Ballad has given evidence that during the search, Ganja was recovered from this house and the Ganja weighed 2.5 kilogram. He has given evidence that three samples of 25 gram each were separated from this Ganja and they were sealed by using lakh as sealing material. He has given evidence that video shooting of the entire incident was done through a prosecution witness. The report given by Ballad is produced at Exhibit-35. Inspector Deshmukh (PW-5) has given evidence that the staff recovered Ganja from this house. Other evidence of Deshmukh is similar to the evidence of Ballad. Inspector Deshmukh signed on Panchanama at Exhibit – 40. 8. Jafar Khan (PW-2), a Panch witness has been given the evidence that the raiding party found Ganja in a room from the aforesaid house. His other evidence s similar to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5. 9. The evidence of Ballad (PW-1) shows that he was not able to describe the house from where the Ganja is shown to be recovered. His evidence is not satisfactory as to the place from the locality and also as to the number of the house. His evidence does not show that Ganja was kept in concealed condition. His evidence shows that no inquiry was made with neighbours of this house to ascertain as to who was the owner of this house and who was occupying this house. The record shows that some household articles were found in this house, but no record, letter etc. was recovered from this house to show that Accused No.2 was the owner of the house or the house was in possession of Accused No.1. An attempt is made by Ballad to say that Accused No.1 supplied information that it was Ganja of Accused No.2 and she was selling it for Accused No.2. Such so called disclosure of the accused made to Police cannot be used in such a case due to bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. An attempt is made by Ballad to say that Accused No.1 supplied information that it was Ganja of Accused No.2 and she was selling it for Accused No.2. Such so called disclosure of the accused made to Police cannot be used in such a case due to bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It needs to be presumed that immediately after the entry of the Police in the said room, the Police were in control of the situation and accused was giving statement to the Police. 10. The Investigating Officer (PW-4) has given evidence that he collected information about ownership of this house from the Municipal Corporation. A letter signed by (PW-4) Mr. Chate, is produced at Exhibit – 47. This document shows that Mr. Chate did not know even the property number of this house and he made inquiry with the Corporation as to whether Accused No.2 was owner of any house from Bhimnagar. Thus, on 11th May, 2012, the Police had no concrete record or information that Accused No.2 was owner of any house from Bhimnagar. From such evidence, inference is not possible that the house where the so called raid was effected, was really owned by Accused No.2 or that the house was in possession of Accused No.1. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the evidence given by the prosecution is not convincing to prove possession of contraband as against Accused Nos.1 and 2. 11. Mr. Pankaj (PW-3), a photographer who did the video shooting has given evidence that the recording was done on digital video recorder. He has given evidence that he prepared DVD and he handed over it to the Police. In the Court, that DVD is not produced by the Investigating Agency. But, one CD is produced. Pankaj has given evidence that the CD produced in the CD was not handed over by him to the Police. The evidence on record shows that the trial Court had allowed both the sides to see the CD and one Advocate was appointed to prepare transcript. Even if the lacuna in the procedure followed to collect the record and to prepare transcript is ignored and the transcript is read as it is, the transcript at Exhibit – 61 does not corroborate the case of the prosecution. Even if the lacuna in the procedure followed to collect the record and to prepare transcript is ignored and the transcript is read as it is, the transcript at Exhibit – 61 does not corroborate the case of the prosecution. In ordinary course, video shooting record ought to have been in continuity and it ought to have been right from the time of the leaving Police Station by the raiding party. First Ganja is shown in CD. Incidents like searching of persons of Police and Police vehicles are recorded. In CD, two ladies are show, who were standing by the side of Accused No.1. In FIR, there is no mention of lady Police Officers and there is no such mention even in the Panchanama. There is no voice in the CD and the CD does not contain the incident of taking samples. The CD does not show that recording of taking search of the house was done. The weighment of Ganja was done on the road as per CD. The CD shows that only after weighing of the Ganja, signatures of Accused No.1 were obtained on some papers. This CD virtually destroys the case of prosecution about following of the procedure of search, seizure etc. 12. The CA report shows that the Ganja received by CA office weighed 32 grams. As per the case of the prosecution, 25 grams of Ganja was sent to CA office. Even if it is presumed that the Ganja was fresh and damp, the CA office would have recorded less weight, but in any case, not more weight than the weight recorded during the Panchanama. This circumstance alongwith the aforesaid circumstances create doubt about the evidence of Police Officers that in the house where raid was effected, samples were prepared and they were sealed there only. No specific evidence is given either by Ballad or by Deshmukh or even by Panch witness about the seal used during the Panchanama. The record produced shows that one Executive Magistrate was called to Police Station after so called seizure. However, no inventory or its copy is produced by the Police in the case, which ought to have been done as provided under Section 52A of the Act. It can be said that a receipt prepared in respect of entire property, Ganja weighing 2.5 kilogram is produced. However, no inventory or its copy is produced by the Police in the case, which ought to have been done as provided under Section 52A of the Act. It can be said that a receipt prepared in respect of entire property, Ganja weighing 2.5 kilogram is produced. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, the evidence regarding the time of seizure, place of seizure, preparation of samples etc. has become highly doubtful in nature. 13. Section 51 of the Act shows that provision of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. One Panch witness examined by prosecution, knew Police Officer Deshmukh. This Panch witness was not resident of the place where raid was effected and he was resident of Khadrabad Plot. He could not describe the house where raid was effected. The evidence shows that he signed Panchanama in the Police Station and he had given signature on slip and not on sample packet or packet of Ganja. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the packets were not sealed in his presence by using sealing material. This evidence again creates doubt about the procedure followed for search and seizure and the presence of Panch witnesses at the time of search and seizure. 14. Section 54 of the Act provides that presumption can be raised against accused that he committed offence, but for drawing such presumption, prosecution is required to prove the possession of the accused over the contraband. For proving offence punishable under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act, possession of the Accused must be exclusive though it may not be actual. It can be even constructive. The evidence with regard to possession must eliminate possibility of possession of other person. The aforesaid evidence is not sufficient to prove that the house raided was really owned by Accused No.2 or Accused No.1 was in possession of the house. The evidence is not sufficient to prove that Accused No.1 had knowledge about the existence of contraband in that house or she had general control over the house or atleast over the contraband. As there is no satisfactory evidence of possession, it is not possible to convict both the accused in this case. 15. The evidence is not sufficient to prove that Accused No.1 had knowledge about the existence of contraband in that house or she had general control over the house or atleast over the contraband. As there is no satisfactory evidence of possession, it is not possible to convict both the accused in this case. 15. Section 42 (2) of the Act shows that when such information is received, it should be reduced to writing, a copy of it needs to be sent to immediate official superior within 72 hours. Though the record of Station Diary as already discussed is created, the correspondence with DSP does not show that a copy of it was sent to official superior. Section 55 of the Act shows that the contraband should be kept in safe custody. The discussion already made has created probability of tampering with both contraband seized and so called samples prepared during the Panchanama. Section 57 of the Act requires that a report should be given about the seizure to the immediate official superior within 48 hours. Neither Mr. Ballad nor Mr. Deshmukh gave such report to the official superior. Sections 55 and 57 of the Act are directory in nature but the discussion already made shows that noncompliance has caused pre-judice to the defence. Due to this noncompliance, the case of the prosecution has become doubtful. 16. For the State, some reported cases were cited. In the case reported as [2004 CRI. L.J. 5018], (State of Punjab Vs. Makhan Chand) Supreme Court, the Apex Court has discussed the provision of Section 52A of the Act. The purpose behind this provision is discussed and it is observed that it is only a directive provision and non-compliance of this provision does not vitiate the trial. Similar observations are made by Bombay High Court in a case reported as [1993 Cri. L. J. 3844], (Rifakatalikhan Vs. State of Maharashtra). There cannot be dispute over this proposition. 17. In the case reported as [AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753], (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat), the Apex Court has laid down that minor discrepancy cannot be given over much importance. There cannot be dispute over this proposition. The Apex Court was considering the case of sexual assault. The present case is filed for the offence committed under the Act and there are both directory and mandatory provisions in the Act. State of Gujarat), the Apex Court has laid down that minor discrepancy cannot be given over much importance. There cannot be dispute over this proposition. The Apex Court was considering the case of sexual assault. The present case is filed for the offence committed under the Act and there are both directory and mandatory provisions in the Act. Minimum penalty is prescribed for the offence. In such a case, the discrepancies need to be give due weight and it is the duty of the Court to see whether the mandatory and directory provisions were duly complied with. Non compliance of mandatory provisions like Sections 41 and 42 goes to the root of case. If there is noncompliance of directory provisions like Sections 55 and 57 and it has caused prejudice to the defence, Court can give benefit of doubt to accused. 18. In the case reported as [AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3184], (Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab), the Apex Court has discussed the concept of “possession” as under: “S. 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. In order to make the possession illicit, there must be a conscious possession. The expression ‘possession’ is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meaning in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, to work out a completely logical and precise definition of ‘possession’ uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statues. Possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive. The word ‘conscious’ means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. Once possession is established the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. S. 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition to this position. Similar is the position in terms of S.54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.” There cannot be dispute over aforesaid proposition. 19. In the case reported as [2002 CRI. L. J. 4600], Himachal Pradesh High Court, (Fredrick George Vs. State of H.P.), when there was recovery of contraband from a vehicle, the Court held that the possession was proved. The accused was found with the vehicle. 19. In the case reported as [2002 CRI. L. J. 4600], Himachal Pradesh High Court, (Fredrick George Vs. State of H.P.), when there was recovery of contraband from a vehicle, the Court held that the possession was proved. The accused was found with the vehicle. There are also observations with regard to Section 55 of the Act, which is directory in nature. 20. For the Appellants, reliance was placed on some reported cases. In the case reported as [ AIR 2005 SC 1389 ], (Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa), the discrepancies with regard to weight recorded in the Panchanama and the weight noted by CA office is discussed. The facts were difference, but while appreciating the evidence of this case, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court has been considered by this Court. 21. In the case reported as [2010 CRI. L. J. 1997], Bombay High Court (Shahaji Mattapattil and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra), the provision of Section 52-A of the Act is discussed. It can be said that the ratio is different than the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Makhan’s case cited (supra). It is needless to mentioned that this Court is expected to follow the ratio laid down in Makhan’s case cited (supra). 22. In the case reported as [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2413], Bombay High Court (Anilkumar@ Annu s/o. Puranlal Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra), there was the evidence only of Police Officer. Thus, the facts were different. In the case reported as [2009 AIR SCW 3371], (State of Punjab Vs. Gurnam Kaur and Ors), the facts were different. 23. In the case reported as [1996 CRI. L. J. 148], Bombay High Court (Rubyana alias Smita Sanjib Bali Vs. State of Maharashtra), the High Court has considered the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has observed that when the circumstance, which is against the accused is not put to him during the statement, that circumstance cannot be used. The facts of the present case are different. The record shows that after production of Station Diary entry and CA report, opportunity was given to the defence to argue on that circumstance. It was open to the defence to recall any witness for further cross-examining the witness. The facts of the present case are different. The record shows that after production of Station Diary entry and CA report, opportunity was given to the defence to argue on that circumstance. It was open to the defence to recall any witness for further cross-examining the witness. Thus, the opportunity was given to the defence to have its say though additional statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not recorded. In view of the facts of this case, this Court holds that no prejudice has been caused to the defence. 24. In the case reported as [1993 CRI. L. J. 1502], Bombay High Court (Antony Sauri Pilley Vs. State of Maharashtra), possession was not proved and the facts of that case were totally different. 25. This Court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 were in possession of the contraband shown to be seized in the case. This Court holds that both the accused are entitled to acquittal. 26. In the result, the following order is passed : 27. Both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No.1 of 2012 delivered by the Special Judge, Parbhani is hereby set aside. Both the Appellants – accused stand acquitted of the offence for which they were charged and tried. They are to be set at liberty, if they are not required in any other case. Fine amount, if any, deposited by them is to be returned to them forthwith. 28. Criminal Application No.3098 of 2013 for bail, stands disposed of.