JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, rendered on 29.12.2007, by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2004, whereby the respondent has been acquitted for his having committed offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein-after referred to as NDPS Act). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.12.2003, at about 2.15 P.M. a telephonic call was received from some unkown person by ASI Baldev, incharge Police Post, Darang, that scooter, bearing No. HP-33-7358, coming from Narla towards Mandi and some contraband was being carried illegally in the said scooter. Thereafter, the report, under Section 42(2) of the Act, was sent through Constable Brij Lal to Dy. S.P. Ms. Subhra Tiwari. ASI Baldev Singh, along with Constable Ghanshayam, reached at National Highway, near Police Post, Darang, and joined Dr. Ravinder Kaundal, as an independent witness. Scooter, being driven by accused, was stopped and the respondent-accused was apprised that he was being suspected of carrying Charas as he has a right to get himself searched either before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused agreed for his search being carried out from the police party and gave his consent comprised in memo Ext. PB. ASI Baldev gave his personal search to the accused vide memo Ext. PC. Thereafter, he conducted the search of dickey of the scooter, from which two poly bags were recovered containing charas or opium. The recovered charas was weighed and found to be 2 Kgs and 500 grams. The Investigating Officer separated 2 samples of 25 grams each and put them in two sealed packets and sealed with seal H at 6 places. The remaining bulk was put in a single poly bag and sealed with seal H at 9 places. The seal, after use, was handed over to Dr. Ravinder Kaundal. The I.O. filled up the columns of NCB form Ext. PP and put seal impression H on the said form. The case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE duly signed by the witnesses. The accused was arrested vide memo Ext. PH and given memo of information of commission of offence comprised in memo Ext. PF. ASI Baldev sent Ruka Ext. PP and put seal impression H on the said form. The case property was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE duly signed by the witnesses. The accused was arrested vide memo Ext. PH and given memo of information of commission of offence comprised in memo Ext. PF. ASI Baldev sent Ruka Ext. PN through HHC Balbir for registration of the case and he handed over the same to K.D. Sharma, Inspector Police Station Sadar, who recorded the F.I.R. Ext. PO. 3. After receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ext.PP/1, it was revealed that the contraband, recovered from the accused, was opium, as such, challan under Section 173 of the Cr. P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. Accused was charged for his having committed offence punishable under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, by the learned trial Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded innocence. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused was given an opportunity to adduce evidence, in, defence, and he chose not to adduce any evidence in defence. 6. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent. 7. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross-mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused has with considerable force and vigour contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 9. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused has with considerable force and vigour contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 9. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 10. The first witness, who, stepped into the witness box to prove the prosecution case, is, PW-1 Constable Ghanshyam, who deposes that on 7.12.2003, at about 2.15 p.m., ASI Baldev received a telephonic call in the Police Post, Drang that a scooter, bearing No. HP-33-7358, is coming from Narla to Mandi and the driver of the scooter is deposed to be carrying some contraband article in the said scooter. Thereafter, he, along with ASI Baldev, stood on the road and Dr. Ravinder Kaundal, running a private clinic, was also called. He further deposes that the scooter was parked by the side of the road and the accused was apprised that he has a legal right to get himself searched either from a Magistrate or a gazetted officer, to which, the accused offered to be searched by the police. He continues to depose that during search, two polythene bags were recovered from the dickey of the scooter, which was weighed and found to be 2.500 kgs. He further deposes that I.O. separated two samples of opium from both the bags of 25 grams each and put them in a parcel and sealed with seal H. The remaining opium was also put in separate parcel and sealed with seal H. The copy of the recovery memo was also supplied to the accused. The I.O. also filled up NCB form in triplicate and impression of seal H was also taken on the NCB form. The I.O. sent ruka through constable Balbir Singh for registration of the case to P.S. Sadar. 11. PW-2 Ravinder Kaundal, PW-3 Nirmala Devi, and PW-12 Hem Singh have not supported the prosecution case since during their examination-in-chief they have not supported the prosecution case, hence, they were declared hostile and was requested by the learned public prosecutor to be cross-examined. The I.O. sent ruka through constable Balbir Singh for registration of the case to P.S. Sadar. 11. PW-2 Ravinder Kaundal, PW-3 Nirmala Devi, and PW-12 Hem Singh have not supported the prosecution case since during their examination-in-chief they have not supported the prosecution case, hence, they were declared hostile and was requested by the learned public prosecutor to be cross-examined. On his request, having come to be acceded to, they were cross-examined by the learned public prosecutor but no incriminating material against the accused could be elicited from their cross-examination. 12. PW-4 Kashmir Singh deposes that on 7.12.2003, a police official came to his shop and asked him to handover scale and weights. Accordingly, he handed over scale along with weights of 2 kgs, 1 kg, 500, 100, 50 grams. Later-on, he took the said scale along with weights, and left the same at his shop. 13. PW-5 H.C. Ramesh Chand deposes that on 8.12.2003, report under Section 42(2) Ext.PA was handed over to him by Dy. S.P. Shubhra Tiwari, which was received by her on 7.12.2003. He further deposes that on the same day, special report under Section 57 was handed over to him at 3.50 p.m. by the Dy. S.P. and the same is Ext. PL. 14. PW-6 HHC Baldev deposes that on 7.12.2003, SHO K.D. Sharma deposited with him three parcels. He further deposes that SHO also deposited with him NCB form, sample seals H and N and recovery memo etc. and the same were entered in the Malkhana Register. In cross-examination, he deposes that bulk parcel Ext.P-3 is partly damaged and further deposes that when it was deposited with him the parcel was in proper shape. 15. PW-7 HHC Mohan Lal deposes that on 10.12.2003, HHC Baldev Singh handed over him one sample parcel, sample seals H and N, NCB form and other documents vide RC No. 008440, which he deposited on the same day in CTL, Kandaghat. He further deposes that nobody tampered with the case property so long it remained with him. 16. PW-8 Constable Brij Jal deposes that on 7.12.2003, at about 12.25 P.M. Constable Liak Chand handed over to him report under Section 42(2), copy of which is Ext. PA and he handed over the same to Dy. S.P. at her residence and she also appended endorsement on the same. 17. 16. PW-8 Constable Brij Jal deposes that on 7.12.2003, at about 12.25 P.M. Constable Liak Chand handed over to him report under Section 42(2), copy of which is Ext. PA and he handed over the same to Dy. S.P. at her residence and she also appended endorsement on the same. 17. PW-9 Constable Liak Chand deposes that on 7.12.2003, at about 2.15 P.M. a telephonic call was received that a scooter bearing No. HP-33-7358 was coming from Narla side and opium was being carried in it and he reduced the same in daily diary register vide D.D. No. 12 vide Ext. PA. 18. PW-10 Constable Balbir Singh deposes that on 7.12.2003, at about 5.30 P.M. ASI Baldev handed over to him the ruka, three parcels of opium, bearing seal impression H along with the sample seal N, NCB form, etc. to deposit the same at P.S. Sadar, which he deposited at 6.25 P.M. with SHO K.D. Sharma. He further deposes that he handed over the ruka to MHC Gulab Singh, who, on its basis, registered the F.I.R. and handed over the case file back to him. 19. PW-11 Inspector K.D. Sharma, deposes that on 7.12.2003, he received a ruka Ext. PN through constable Balbir Singh, on the basis of which, he recorded the F.I.R. He further deposes that Constable Balbir Singh handed over to him bulk parcel Ext.P4. He continues to depose that he re-sealed the case property with his own seal having seal impression N. He further deposes that he deposited the case property with Incharge Malkhana, Baldev Singh, along with NCB form, specimen seals, H and N. In cross-examination, he deposes that Ext.P-3 was not torn at the time of resealing and feigns ignorance when the cloth of the parcel was torn. He further deposes that he has not filled in the column No. 9 of the NCB form. 20. PW-13 Dy. S.P. Ms. Shubhra Tiwari, deposes that on 7.12.2003, she received information report under Section 42(2) through Constable Brij Lal and she made endorsement on the said report. She continues to depose that on the next day, she received the special report under Section 57 of the Act through Constable Baldev Singh on which she made endorsement. 21. PW-14 ASI Baldev Singh deposes that he received the telephonic information about the carrying of contraband in a scooter bearing No. HP-33-7358. She continues to depose that on the next day, she received the special report under Section 57 of the Act through Constable Baldev Singh on which she made endorsement. 21. PW-14 ASI Baldev Singh deposes that he received the telephonic information about the carrying of contraband in a scooter bearing No. HP-33-7358. He further deposes that he alongwith constable Ghanshyam went towards NH-20 near PP Drang and associated Dr. Ravinder Kaundal, as a witness and stopped the accused. He further deposes that accused agreed for his search to be carried out by the police party and conducted the search of the dickey of the scooter and during such search, two poly bags were recovered, which were containing opium. He continues to depose that he filled in the NCB form in triplicate and put the impression of seal H on the same. He proceeds to depose that the accused was arrested vide memo PH and was duly informed regarding grounds of arrest. He continues to depose that the case property was sent through HHC Balbir Singh to Police Station alongwith seal H and NCB form and deposes that special report under Section 57 was sent through HHC Balbir Singh. In cross-examination he admits the suggestion that column No. 9 to 12 of the NCB form are blank and also admits that Ext. P-3 Ext.P-4 are torn out from the middle. 22. PW-15 Dy. S.P.N.K. Sharma deposes that on 8.6.2004 ASI Baldev Singh, Incharge P.P. Drang, after completion of the investigation, handed over the case file to him and after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner Ext.PP/1, he prepared the challan and presented the same in Court. 23. The rummaging of the evidence on record by this Court has been thorough and circumspect. The prosecution case, per-se, is hit by pervasive infirmities. The said pervasive infirmities rid as well as ingrain the prosecution case with the vice of prevarication, hence, rendering the genesis of the prosecution case to be both uninspiring as well as untrustworthy. 23. The rummaging of the evidence on record by this Court has been thorough and circumspect. The prosecution case, per-se, is hit by pervasive infirmities. The said pervasive infirmities rid as well as ingrain the prosecution case with the vice of prevarication, hence, rendering the genesis of the prosecution case to be both uninspiring as well as untrustworthy. The prime infirmity, which grips the prosecution case, is, of the mandate of Section 52(3) of the NDPS Act, contemplating and enjoining a statutory mandatory duty upon the Investigating Officer who arrests a person and seizes articles under sub section (2) of Section 41, Section 42 and Section 43 or Section 44 to transmit or forward without unnecessary delay both the person arrested and the article seized, to the Officer Incharge of the nearest Police Station or to the Officer In-charge empowered under Section 53, having been infringed. Now for fathoming whether the casting of the statutory mandatory duty upon the Investigating Officer had come to be infracted, an advertence to the testimony of PW-14 is necessary, wherein he deposes that he had taken the accused to the police post, Darang at 6.00 P.M. Obviously, it is palpable that hence he had not taken the accused alongwith the case property to the Police Station, manned by Station House Officer before whom the accused was to be mandatorily produced. Consequently, when there was a mandatory statutory obligation cast upon the Investigating Officer to take the accused arrested by him for his having committed the offence alleged, to the Officer In-charge of the nearest Police Station, who did not man the police post rather manned the Police Station, marks a departure from or transgression on his part of the mandatory statutory obligation cast upon him. The said deposition of I.O. appearing as PW-14 is corroborated by the deposition of PW-15, inasmuch, as, he voices in his deposition the fact that the accused was not either produced by him before the Station House Officer or any other Police Officer, after completion of the codal formalities at the site of occurrence, which deposition with aplomb constrains this Court to conclude that a shady, camouflaged and impartisan investigation has been carried out by the Investigating Officer. Obviously, it cannot gain credence with this Court. 24. Obviously, it cannot gain credence with this Court. 24. The inference formed by this Court that the obligation cast under Section 52(3) of the Act upon the Investigating Officer after arresting the accused produce him before the Officer Incharge of the Police Station or the Officer empowered under Section 52(3) being mandatory, attains sanctity in the face of it being omitted to be canvassed by the learned Deputy Advocate General by citing apposite authorities rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court pronouncing upon the fact that the said obligation envisaged and contemplated in Section 52(3) of the NDPS Act of the arresting officer or the investigating officer on arresting the accused produce him without unnecessary delay before the officer incharge of police station or the officer empowered is not a mandatory obligation, rather is directory, a firm conclusion hence, can be formed that the obligation aforesaid cast upon the Investigating Officer under Section 52(3) of the NDPS Act is a mandatory obligation and its non compliance vitiates the prosecution case or it renders suspect the genesis of the prosecution version. 25. Moreover, the parcels in the instant case were found in a tattered or torn condition, which fact has come to be conceded by PW-14. The tattered condition of the parcel inspires a conclusion that they did not remain intact or gained such a condition as the Investigating Officer or any official of the Police Station concerned had taken to tamper with them. With the forming of such a conclusion the prosecution case is also rendered suspect besides does not gain credence. 26. For reiteration, in other words, it has to be concluded that the parcels, as attributable to the accused or portrayed to be purportedly linking the accused in the commission of the offence alleged are not the parcels as may have been allegedly recovered from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused rather it has to be with aplomb concluded that replaced parcels are attributed to the accused. As a corollary, then on substituted, replaced or tampered parcels, this Court cannot record findings of conviction against the accused. 27. Preponderantly and pre-eminently Column No. 9 to 12 of the NCB form are blank. The said columns were enjoined to be filled in by the SHO of the Police Station concerned. As a corollary, then on substituted, replaced or tampered parcels, this Court cannot record findings of conviction against the accused. 27. Preponderantly and pre-eminently Column No. 9 to 12 of the NCB form are blank. The said columns were enjoined to be filled in by the SHO of the Police Station concerned. In case they were omitted to be filled in by the SHO, renders open a conclusion that the Investigating Officer did not produce even the case property for its resealing by the SHO of the concerned Police Station. If the above inference is drawable, then entwined with the inference aforesaid formed on the basis of production of tattered parcels, of replaced or substituted material being projected by the prosecution to be allegedly connecting the accused in the offence alleged, it magnifyingly ensuingly fillips a conclusion that the Investigating Officer has conducted the entire investigation in a slanted and mechanical manner. More so when the abstract of Malkhana Register has not been produced in Court which fact entwined with the fact that Column No. 10 of the NCB form relating to the deposit of the case property in the Police Malkhana has, too, remained unfilled, communicates the fact of the aforesaid omission having been occasioned by the Investigating Officer smothering the truth qua the genesis of the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court cannot place any reliance upon slanted, tainted or vitiated investigation. 28. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a mature and balanced manner and its findings, hence, do not necessitate interference. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit and the findings rendered by the learned trial Court are affirmed and maintained. Records of the learned trial Court be sent down forthwith.