U.C. Dhyani, J. – PW1 S.I. Nanhe Lal lodged an FIR at Police Station Ram-nagar, District Nainital on 17.5.1998 at 12:15 AM (00:15 hours) against accused Harbansh Singh, which was registered as case crime No. 266/1998 under sec­tion 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The incident allegedly took place on 16.5.1998 at 10:00 PM and the FIR was lodged on 17.5.1998 at 12:15 AM. The distance between the place of incident and the police station was 8 km. Hence, there appears to be no delay in lodging FIR. 2. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused, namely, Harbansh Singh for the offence punishable under section 18/20 of the Act. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge against the accused was framed for the offence punishable under section 20(1) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. PW1 S.I. (retired) Janki Singh, PW2 S.I. Nanhe Lal and PW3 Head Constable Narendra Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. In­criminating evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge/lst F.T.C., District Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 24.5.2002, convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further impris­onment for three months. Aggrieved against the same, the present criminal appeal was preferred by the convict. 5. PW1 was the Investigating Officer of the case, who said, in his examina-tion-in-chief, that he was posted as S.I. at Police Station Ramnagar on 17.5.1998. During the course of investigation, he took the statements of the witnesses, inspected the place of incident and pre­pared the site-plan (Ex.Ka-1). Representative sample of the substance was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) through Constable Krishan Kumar and when the F.S.L. report was received, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that "entire case property was sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination". He did not re­member as to when the case property was sent to the Court. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that "entire case property was sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination". He did not re­member as to when the case property was sent to the Court. He could not dis­close as to for how many days the case property remained in malkhana. PW1 further stated that the case property was kept in the police station in a seal of S.I. Nanhe Lal (PW2). He could not tell in his cross-examination as to when the immediate official superior was in­formed about the incident. He was not aware whether the immediate official superior was informed about the inci­dent or not. According to PW1, site-plan was prepared with the help of Constable Shafiuddin (not examined). Thus, vari­ous infirmities were found in the cross-examination of PW1. If the testimony of PW1 was any indication of the evidence tendered by the prosecution, then the same was under suspicion at the first blush, inasmuch as the Investigating Officer did not know as to whether the immediate official superior was informed about the incident or not. A duty is cast upon the arresting officer, as also other police officials, to inform their immediate official superior, no sooner' any narcotics substance is seized. Fur­ther, the Investigating Officer did not know as to how for many days, the case property remained in malkhana. It is surprising to note that in the opening line of r his cross-examination, PW1 stated .ihat 'entire case property was sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination'. Constable Krishan Kumar, who took the representative sample of the substance to the F.S.L., was not exam­ined. Prosecution story, therefore, was under the clouds of suspicion, if one lifts the veil and if one reads the evidence of PW1. 6. PW2, in his examination-in-chief, said that he was posted at P.S. Ramnagar on 16.5.1998. He alongwith other police personnel started for patrol­ling duty on 16.5.1998 at 5:00 P.M. When they were coming from village Sawal-day and reached a trisection near the shop of Pratap Singh Negi, they found a person coming on cycle. The police personnel saw him in the torch light. The said person turned back and sped up his cycle. He was chased and was caught at 10:00 P.M. by the police personnel. He disclosed his name as Harbansh Singh. He was found in possession of 1 kg ganja. The police personnel saw him in the torch light. The said person turned back and sped up his cycle. He was chased and was caught at 10:00 P.M. by the police personnel. He disclosed his name as Harbansh Singh. He was found in possession of 1 kg ganja. The accused was duly informed of his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, as re­quired under section 50 of the Act, but he declined that offer. On his search, ganja was found which was kept in a bag. A weighing machine was brought from the shop of Pratap Singh Negi. Ganja weighed 8 kg. A recovery memo (Ex.Ka-3) of the recovered substance was prepared. PW1, as also the other police witnesses appended their signa­tures on the recovery memo. The case was registered against the accused. PW2 also proved chick FIR (Ex.Ka-4) and the entry of the same in the G.D. (Ex.Ka-5). 7. Ganja (material Ex.1) and bag (material Ex.2) were produced in the Court. Representative sample of the substance (ganja) was sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination. The F.S.L. report (Ex.Ka-6) was also brought on record. In the cross-examination, PW2 said that he did not bring G.D. in the Court. The shop of Pratap Singh Negi was near the place of recovery of ganja from the possession of accused. The police personnel also gave a search to each other in order to insure that they (police) were not al­ready having any objectionable sub­stance. There was no traffic on the road after 6:00 PM. They could not procure any independent witness because of odd hours. Although, they called the public witnesses, but nobody came to the place of recovery of narcotics substance. There were 2-4 shops near the place of recov­ery of ganja. In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that he did not inform his immediate official superior regarding the recovery of narcotics substance from the possession of accused. PW2 was not aware as to whether the Station Officer gave such information to the immediate official superior or not. The compliance of section 57 of the Act was, therefore, not made. Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads as under: "57. PW2 was not aware as to whether the Station Officer gave such information to the immediate official superior or not. The compliance of section 57 of the Act was, therefore, not made. Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads as under: "57. Report of arrest and seizure-Whenever any person makes any ar­rest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immedi­ate official superior." 8. In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that the police personnel who had appre­hended the accused and searched his baggage had thereafter complied with the aforesaid requirement of section 57. PW3 although supported the testimony of PW2, but his testimony, too, suffers from the same infirmity by which the testimony of PW2 suffered. Apart from the same, PW3 stated that they obtained written consent of the accused under section 50 of the Act, but, such written consent (that he-was agreeable to get him searched by the police officials themselves) was not brought on record. It was further stated by PW3 that the sample seal was taken on the place of recovery. He, however, admitted that there was overwriting on the "date and place of incident in the chick FIR. 9. The shopkeeper from whose shop a weighing machine was brought could have been examined by the prose­cution. Since his shop was near the place of incident, therefore, he could have bee"n made an independent witness of the" incident. Since there were material infirmities, especially in the evidence of PW1, therefore, the presence of inde­pendent witness in support of prosecu­tion story gained importance. How much of the representative sample of the recovered substance was sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination, was not disclosed. It was not established as to how for many days the case property remained in malkhana when the repre­sentative sample was taken to F.S.L. for chemical examination. The constable, who took the sample to F.S.L., was not examined. When did the said Constable proceed from Nainital to the F.S.L., Agra and when he gave the sample at F.S.L., was not brought on record. It was also doubtful as to whether the police witnesses told the accused that he can be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. When did the said Constable proceed from Nainital to the F.S.L., Agra and when he gave the sample at F.S.L., was not brought on record. It was also doubtful as to whether the police witnesses told the accused that he can be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. PW3 said that the accused gave his consent in writing, but no written consent was brought on record. No information was given to the immediate official superior by PW2 or PW3. 10. It is made clear that it is not necessary for the prosecution to bring each and every witness on record to bring home the guilt to the accused. The same depends upon the facts and cir­cumstances of each case. But when several lacunae are left in the prosecution evidence, therefore, the Courts are required to scrutinize the prosecution evi­dence with minutest details. That is why this Court has gone into the intrinsic details of the prosecution story. 11. On a close scrutiny of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not such a case in which the accused could be held guilty and could be convicted on the basis of such fragile prosecution evidence. There is, therefore, no other option but to in­terfere in the impugned judgment and order. Learned Trial Court committed a manifest error in relying upon the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3. In a nut­shell, there was hardly any evidence on record to establish the charge under sec­tion 20(1) of the Act against the accused-appellant. The impugned judgment and order, therefore, cannot sustain in so far as the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 20(1) of the Act is concerned. 12. The criminal appeal preferred by the appellant is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and order, as also the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court is set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. 13. Let the lower Court record alongwith a copy of the judgment be sent to the Court below for compliance. Appeal Allowed. _____________