JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J (Oral). Mr. Ahrar Baig, learned Amicus Curiae is not present in the Court on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Pramod Chandra Tiwari, Advocate is requested to appear in the present matter as Amicus Curiae. He has agreed to appear as Amicus Curiae. Copy of the paper book has been handed over to him. Having perused the paper book, so handed over to him, Mr. Pramod Chandra Tiwari has agreed to argue the appeal today itself. 2. Present appeal was received through the Jail Authorities of Haridwar. 3. Appellant, by way of present appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 25.05.2011 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2010 whereby the appellant was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay fine of ‘1,00,000/-, failing which to undergo additional imprisonment for one year. 4. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that on 16.02.2010 Sub Inspector Jaswant Singh (P.W.4) along with other police personals was on patrolling duty; P.W.4, near the Kangri check post, has signaled Bus No. UA07J/4179 to stop; thereafter P.W.4 along with other police personals entered into the bus for the purpose of checking; Appellant – Smt. Dil Kumari, Bhim Bahadur, Smt. Farkmiya and Teg Bahadur, all resident of Nepal started behaving abnormally after seeing the policy party; all the four persons were asked as to why they are behaving abnormally, then all of them told the police party that they were carrying chrus; appellant and three other were asked about their legal right to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer/Magistrate, but appellant and three others told the police personals that they had complete trust on the police party, therefore, search could be made by the police personals; thereafter, appellant was searched and other three persons were also searched and from the possession of the appellant three packets of chrus weighting about two kilogram was recovered. Appellant was arrested, seizure memo and arrest memo were prepared on the spot; 100 gm sample was taken out from the chrus so recovered from the appellant; sample and rest of contraband, were kept under the seal cover by P.W.4; sample seal was also prepared on the spot; thereafter appellant as well as contraband recovered along with other three accused were brought to the Thana. Initially investigation was handed over to the Sub Inspector Harendra Chaudhary (P.W.5) and thereafter it was handed over to Sub-Inspector Bhagat Das (P.W.7). Sample so taken out by the Arresting Officer P.W.4 was sent for the chemical examination on 10.03.2010; having investigated the case chargesheet was submitted against the appellant; learned trial court has framed charges against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act; appellant denied the charges and claimed trial; before the trial court Harish Chand Juyal conductor of Bus No. UA07J/4179 (P.W.1), Head Constable Harpal Singh (P.W.2), Lady Constable Tulsi Goswami(P.W.3), Sub Inspector Jaswant Singh (P.W.4), Sub Inspector Harendra Chaudhary (P.W.5), Head Constable Ashok Chaudhary (P.W.6), Sub Inspector Bhagat Das (P.W.7) and Sub Inspector Harsh Mani (P.W.8) were examined; statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 5. Having perused the entire material available on record, learned trial court has passed judgment and order under appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. Pramod Chandra Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Mr. V. Panoli, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, learned Brief Holder for the State and carefully perused the record. 7. As per the statement of P.W.4 – Sub Inspector Jaswant Singh, P.W.2 Head Constable Harpal Singh, P.W.3, Lady Constable Tulsi Goswami, appellant and aforesaid three persons were carrying chrus with them while travelling in Bus No. UA07J/4179; bus was signaled to be stopped near Kangri check-post; after looking at the police personals, appellant and three others started behaving abnormally; appellant and three others were detained on interrogation appellant told the police party that she was carrying chras; after telling them their right, if they wish, search could be made in the presence of Gazetted Officer/Magistrate and after obtaining their permission, to be searched by the police personals, search was conducted on the person of the appellant. Appellant was found carrying three packets of chrus which was measured after calling weighing scale and weight from police post; seizure memo and arrest memo were prepared on the spot. Sample was taken on the spot; After taking sample, sample as well as contraband was kept in the seal cover under the seal of P.W.4 Jaswant Singh (Sub-Inspector) and thereafter appellant and all other three accused along with the contraband were brought to the Thana. 8. However, as per the statement of Harish Chand Juyal (P.W.1), conductor of the bus No. UA07J/4179, appellant and three others were taken to the Thana in a police jeep; bus along with other passengers was also driven to the Thana; Bus remained at Thana for about 1½ hours; meanwhile police personals prepared the documents and after preparation of the documents his signature were obtained thereon. He further submits he cannot say as to where contraband and sample thereof was kept in seal cover. In view of the statement of P.W.-1, statements of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 stand falsify. 9. As per the statement of P.W.2 Head Constable Harpal Singh and P.W.3 Lady Constable Tulsi Goswami, on 16.02.2010 Sri Uttar Singh was the in-charge of the police station. As per the statement of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 after bringing the accused/appellant and contraband to the Thana, contraband was not shown to the in-charge of police station and in-charge of police station has not put his seal or signature on the contraband before depositing the same into the malkhana of the Thana. 10. In view of this there seems to be total non-compliance of Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Not only this, appellant was arrested on 16.02.2010, sample was allegedly taken out by Jaswant Singh (P.W.4) on the spot on 16.02.2010 while for the first time sample was sent for chemical examination on 10.03.2010. It is not made clear that during this intervening period sample and contraband remained intact. Not only this sample was neither drawn in the presence of in-charge of police station as required under Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act nor same was drawn in the presence of the Magistrate, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the chemical examination report. 11. Not only this sample was neither drawn in the presence of in-charge of police station as required under Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act nor same was drawn in the presence of the Magistrate, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the chemical examination report. 11. Head Constable Harpal Singh (P.W.2) during his cross-examination states that he is not in a position to tell that packet, in which contraband was produced before the court is containing whose signature. He, during the cross-examination, further states that the seal on the packet is not the same which was put on the packet by Sub-Inspect Jaswant Singh (P.W.4) on the spot. In view of this, doubt cropped up about the genuineness and fairness of the entire exercise. 12. There is nothing on record as to how and when information about the arrest of the appellant and seizure of contraband was forwarded to the superior officer by the Sub-Inspector Jaswant Singh (P.W.4). Therefore, there seems to be non-compliance of Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, too. 13. As per the statement of Head Constable – Ashok Chaudhary (P.W.6) he has made search on the person of the appellant before lodging him into police lockup of the Thana and he did not recover any bus ticket or copy of the arrest and seizure memo from the appellant allegedly handed over to the appellant by P.W.4. Therefore, prosecution version that memo of search was given to the appellant on the spot and appellant was found travelling in the bus become highly doubtful. 14. In view of the discussion made herein above, in my firm opinion, prosecution has failed to prove this case beyond doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant seems to be totally unjustified. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. 15. Appellant stand acquitted from the charges levelled against her. Let appellant be release forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 16. Before parting, this Court would like to appreciate the serious efforts made and valuable assistance rendered to the Court by Mr. Pramod Chandra Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae. 17. Lower court record along with copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned trial court for information and necessary compliance.