JUDGMENT Appellant, by way of present appeal, is assailing the judgment and order dated 12-2-2009 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2007 whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for one year under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that P.W. 1 Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar lodged an FIR with police station Banbasa, District Champawat on 9-11-2006 stating therein that on 9-11-2006, he along with Constable Arvind Kumar, Constable Mahendra Giri, Constable Ganesh Singh left the police station at about 5.40 p.m. vide report No. 22 for patrolling duty; when police party reached near Faagpur on Khatima Tanakpur Road, they found one person standing on the road side; having seen the police party that person started behaving abnormally and started rushing towards Faagpur; on suspicion, police party asked him to stop, however, instead of, stopping, he started running; police party, having chased him, apprehended him at about 8-30 p.m.; on being asked, he had disclosed his identity as Prem Lal, resident of village Nigali, near Shyamlatal, police station Kotwali Champawat; appellant further told the police party that he was carrying charas in a polythene bag, which was kept in his bag; on this, police asked the appellant, if he wish, his search could be made in the presence of Magistrate, on this, appellant started apologizing and agreed to be searched by the police party; a consent letter, to be searched by the police party, was prepared on the spot whereupon signature of the appellant was obtained; thereafter, members of police party searched each other and on being satisfied, that none of them were carrying any illegal item, they commenced the search of appellant, appellant was found carrying a yellow colour polythene on which Kwality Shoe Store, Tehsil Road, Khatima (USN) & Action, Bata, Lakhani and Ph. 250597 was printed, inside this yellow polythene bag, there was a pink colour polythene packet wherefrom 750 gms. 250597 was printed, inside this yellow polythene bag, there was a pink colour polythene packet wherefrom 750 gms. of charas was recovered; appellant was asked license for carrying the charas but he failed to produce the same; police party told the appellant that he had committed offence punishable under Section 8/18/20 of the NDPS Act; appellant was formally arrested and charas, so recovered, from the possession of the appellant was kept in seal cover under the seal of P.W. 1 and sample seal thereof was also prepared on the spot; apart from charas, one Nokia 3220 (a mobile handset) bearing IMEI No. 359396009822437 and Rs. 2,200/- were also recovered from the appellant; Nokia phone and Rs. 2,200/-, so recovered, were also kept in seal covers; seizure memo and arrest memo, were prepared on the spot; thereafter, appellant and contraband, so recovered, were brought to the police station and thereafter, FIR No. 18 of 2006 was got registered on 9-11-2006 at 10.45 p.m. 3. Investigation of the case was handed over to SI Harish Chandra Joshi (P.W. 6), who having investigated the matter, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/18/20 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned trial Court on 17-5-2007 framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. Appellant denied charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, from the side of prosecution, P.W. 1 Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar (complainant), P.W. 2 Constable Arvind Kumar, P.W. 3 Constable Hemant Kumar, P.W. 4 Head Constable Bhupal Singh, P.W. 5 Constable Padam Singh and P.W. 6 Harish Chandra Joshi (Investigating Officer) were examined. Statement of accused appellant was also recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. 6. Having perused the material made available on record, learned trial Court was pleased to pass judgment and order under appeal, feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. B. N. Molakhi, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. 8. At the time of search and arrest of the appellant, P.W. 2 Constable Arvind Kumar was with Arresting Officer Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar (P.W. 1). P.W. 2 also came to the police station along with P.W. 1, appellant and contraband, allegedly recovered from the appellant. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. 8. At the time of search and arrest of the appellant, P.W. 2 Constable Arvind Kumar was with Arresting Officer Sub-Inspector Neeraj Kumar (P.W. 1). P.W. 2 also came to the police station along with P.W. 1, appellant and contraband, allegedly recovered from the appellant. However, P.W. 2, in his cross-examination, (at page No. 44 of the paper book) deposed that charas was not measured by any balance or weighing machine, however, its weight was mentioned in the seizure memo by rough calculation; he further submitted that contraband was produced before the In-charge, police station Banbasa but he neither put his signature nor seal, on the seal cover. 9. P.W. Head Constable Bhupal Singh, during his cross-examination, (at page 56 of the paper book) stated that neither he nor Investigating Officer nor Incharge of the police station, had put any seal or signature on the seal cover, containing the contraband, so recovered from the appellant. 10. Section 55 of the NDPS Act reads as under : 55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered. An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station. 11. Having perused the contents of Section 55 of the NDPS Act, I have no hesitation to hold that contraband, so recovered from the accused, shall be forwarded to the officer Incharge of the police station, who shall put the contraband and sample seal in a safe custody and shall affix his seal to such articles before keeping them in the Maalkhana. Section 55 further authorizes Incharge of the police station to permit the Investigating Officer or any other officer to take sample of the contraband in the presence of Incharge of the police station and affix his own seal on the sample, so drawn as well as on the packet, wherein rest of the contraband, is kept, after taking the sample. 12. As observed hereinabove, Investigating Officer as well as Incharge of the police station, failed to put their own respective seals and signatures on the seal cover containing contraband, so recovered from the appellant before depositing the same into the Maalkhana. 13. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State, has argued that provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act are directory in nature, therefore, same may be considered as discretionary and not mandatory, consequently, failure to make compliance of Section 55 can be said to be mere irregularity, therefore, no benefit for violation of Section 55 of the NDPS Act can be extended in favour of the appellant. 14. I do not agree with the submissions of Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, for the simple reason that directory provisions do not give power either to the Investigating Officer and Incharge of the police station, not to put their own respective seals and signatures on the seal cover, containing the contraband. In my firm opinion, since the punishment provided under the NDPS Act is harsh, therefore, strict compliance of provisions of the NDPS Act is required to rule out any false implication of innocent people. 15. In the opinion of this Court, if seal cover, containing the contraband, contains signature and seal of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer and of the Incharge of the police station, it may rule out any tampering with the contraband, so recovered, therefore, in the firm opinion of this Court compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act must be followed to rule out any tampering with contraband, so recovered from the accused. 16. 16. P.W. 5 Constable Padam Singh, who is said to have taken the contraband to the court on 15-11-2006 for seeking permission to take out sample therefrom for sending the same for chemical examination, during his cross-examination (at page 59 of the paper book) stated as under : On 15-11-2006, I brought the contraband from police station to the Court; I do not remember as to whether seal packet was having any chit or entry thereon; I do not remember, whose signatures were present on the seal cover containing contraband; I do not remember how many signatures were present on the seal cover containing the contraband; I cannot say as to whether sample seal was with seal cover containing the contraband; I cannot say definitely as to whether alleged sample seal was containing the signature of any officer. 17. P.W. 1 Arresting Officer Sub Inspector Neeraj Kumar, during his cross-examination, (at page 31 of the paper book) stated that sample seal is not available on record nor sample seal was forwarded to this Court along with contraband, so recovered from the appellant. 18. P.W. 3 Constable Hemant Kumar, who was produced to prove that contraband, Nokia phone and cash, so recovered from the appellant and sample seal, so prepared by PW. 1, were kept in the Maalkhana, during the cross-examination, stated that in report No. 39, there was no mention about anything else except FARD, sample seal was not present along with contraband before him; he cannot say, whose signature and seal were present on the seal cover containing the contraband. 19. In the humble opinion of this Court to prove that contraband, so recovered from the accused, was kept in the seal of Arresting Officer, sample seal prepared by the Arresting Officer must be forwarded to the Incharge of the police station, so that same may be compared before keeping both of them in the Maalkhana, for the purpose of satisfying that contraband, so recovered from the accused, was not tampered with in the intervening period of seizure and bringing the same to the police station. Not only this, sample seal, so prepared by the Arresting Officer on the spot must be produced before the Court for the purpose of satisfying that contraband, so produced before the Court remained intact till the time, it was produced before the Court and seal was not broken in between and seal, on the seal cover, is matching with the sample seal, prepared on the spot. 20. In the opinion of this Court, sample seal is very important piece of link evidence. In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 59 : ( AIR 2005 SC 1578 ) has observed as under : We have perused the judgment of the High Court. Apart from other reasons recorded by the High Court, we find that the link evidence adduced by the prosecution was not at all satisfactory. In the first instance, though the seized articles are said to have been kept in the Malkhana on 20th May, 1995, the Malkhana register was not produced to prove that it was so kept in the Malkhana till it was taken over by P.W. 6 on June 5, 1995. We further find that no sample of the seal was sent along with the sample to Excise Laboratory, Jodhpur for the purpose of comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the seals found were infact the same seals as were put on the sample bottles immediately after seizure of the contraband. These loopholes in the prosecution case have led the High Court to acquit the respondent. 21. In the humble opinion of this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that sample seal and seal cover containing the contraband were not produced before the Incharge of the police station as well as there was no entry in the Maalkhana register regarding movement of contraband and sample seal from police station, therefore, reasonable doubt has created on the genuineness of the prosecution story. 22. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana, reported in 2013 (2) SCC 502 : ( AIR 2013 SC 357 ) in paragraphs 21 & 22 has held as under : 21. When there is total and definite non-compliance with such statutory provisions, the question of prejudice loses its significance. 22. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana, reported in 2013 (2) SCC 502 : ( AIR 2013 SC 357 ) in paragraphs 21 & 22 has held as under : 21. When there is total and definite non-compliance with such statutory provisions, the question of prejudice loses its significance. It will per se amount to prejudice. These are indefeasible, protective rights vested in a suspect and are incapable of being shadowed on the strength of substantial compliance. 22. The purpose of these provisions is to provide due protection to a suspect against false implication and ensure that these provisions are strictly complied with to further the legislative mandate of fair investigation and trial. It will be opposed to the very essence of criminal jurisprudence, if upon apparent and admitted non-compliance of these provisions in their entirety, the Court has to examine the element of prejudice. The element of prejudice is of some significance where provisions are directory or are of the nature admitting substantial compliance. Where the duty is absolute, the element of prejudice would be of least relevance. Absolute duty coupled with strict compliance would rule out the element of prejudice where there is total non-compliance of the provision. 23. In view of the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court, if prosecution has failed to make compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act then legal presumption shall be drawn in favour of the accused that there was prejudice to the accused by non-compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 24. In the firm opinion of this Court, suspicion how high may be, contraband how large may be, should not be made basis of conviction, until and unless, prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 25. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this Court, accused appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt, therefore, impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 12-2-2009 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trail No. 02 of 2007 is hereby set aside. Appellant stands acquitted. Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in connection with present case. His personal bonds and sureties are discharged. 26. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 12-2-2009 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Champawat in Special Sessions Trail No. 02 of 2007 is hereby set aside. Appellant stands acquitted. Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in connection with present case. His personal bonds and sureties are discharged. 26. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for compliance along with lower Court record. Appeal allowed.