Judgment S.R. Sen, J. This instant appeal U/s 374 (2) CPC 1973 is directed against the impugned Judgment & order dated 30.04.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Shillong under CRL. (NDPS) Case No. 3 of 2011 U/s 22 (c) NDPS Act. 2. Memo of appeal disclosed prosecution story in brief is that, “on the 8th day of March, 2011 at around 11:30 PM, an FIR was filed by one WPSI LD Sangma of Lumdiengjri Police Station that on 8th day of March, 2011 at around 2:45 PM, Inspector I.O. Swer, in-charge of Lumdiengjri Traffic Branch produced two vehicles believed to have been stolen bearing Registration No. MZ 01 F 3632 and another No. MZ 01 F 7535, the vehicles were intercepted at Luckier Road, Shillong by Traffic staff. The occupants of the said vehicles together with the alleged stolen vehicles were taken to the Superintendent’s office and the appellants/accused were produced before the Addl. SP (Crime) along with the articles recovered from the said alleged stolen vehicles. While checking the articles, a carton recovered from the vehicle bearing Registration No. MZ 01 F7535 found to have been containing contraband goods namely; Diazepam Injections of 500 in numbers and the said contraband goods were seized at the chamber of Additional Superintendent of Police by SI J.R. Sangma”. 3. Mr MF Qureshi, learned counsel appeared for on behalf of the accused/convict submitted that, in this instant case prosecution has examined as many as 15(fifteen) witnesses and also exhibited 8(eight) documents to establish the case. The learned counsel also contended that while investigating the case, the Investigating Authority has grossly violated the Provision under Section-42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The learned counsel further argued that, the convict Shri. Krishna Bahadur Thapa is only a driver and he had no knowledge about those contraband items and also submitted that those contraband items were purchased from one pharmacy at Guwahati and to supply the same to another pharmacy at Mizoram. Though the IO has stated that documents regarding Cash Memos etc. were seized but the same were never produced before the Court nor the owners of those pharmacies were examined by the police and further argued that, without any fault of the driver, he has been convicted for 10(ten) years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. Though the IO has stated that documents regarding Cash Memos etc. were seized but the same were never produced before the Court nor the owners of those pharmacies were examined by the police and further argued that, without any fault of the driver, he has been convicted for 10(ten) years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh, so the impugned order dated 30.04.2013 needs to be set aside and to set the convict free at liberty. 4. On the other hand, Mr. K Khan, learned Addl. senior GA appeared for on behalf of the State submitted that, Section-42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not attracted in this instant case as the police has apprehended 2(two) stolen vehicles and during search, they recovered some contraband items, so there is nothing wrong with the Judgment. 5. To answer this instant appeal, lest us discuss the evidence as recorded by the learned Court below. 6. From the deposition of the PW-1, it is apparent that during the month of March 2011, she lodged an FIR (Ext-1) at around 2:45 PM before the Inspector I.O Swer, o/c Lumdiengjri Police Station and produced Shri. Krishna Bahadur Thapa, Lalborola Varte and Ms Lalimpiui Khiangte along with the stolen vehicles bearing Registration No. MZ 01 F 3632 and No. MZ 01 F 7535. From her evidence it appears that, thereafter, the vehicles, the accused persons as well as the goods found were taken to the Office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime), Shillong and during search, they found Diazepam injection IPSEPOSE for IM and slow IV Injection and also prepared the panchanama (Ext-2) and identified the materials exhibited as Ext- I, II & III. According to her, the contraband items were seized in presence of the accused and witness. 7. In cross-examination, it is an admitted fact that the vehicles were detained at around 2:45 PM but produced in the Office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime) at around 6:00 PM. From her evidence, it further appears that body search of the accused was also conducted in the Police Station itself and also made it clear that, she has not prepared any seizure list in respect of the syringe injections recovered from the accused Ms L Khiangte. She also admitted that, GD entry was made by her but the same was not produced before the Court neither the same reflected in the FIR. She also admitted that, GD entry was made by her but the same was not produced before the Court neither the same reflected in the FIR. She also admitted that, an FIR (Ext.1) was lodged only after producing the accused persons in the office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime) and seizure was made there itself. She categorically admitted that, she is one of the seizure witness of Ext.3 which was prepared in the SP’s office but the articles seized were already recovered by her at Lumdiengjri Police Station. It is also apparent from the evidence of PW-1 that, physical search was done on Ms L Khiangte without consent and her consent was taken only at the SP’s office. 8. Further evaluation of evidence of PW-1 in its totality, it is apparent to us that, initially the vehicles were detained as stolen vehicles but from evidence nowhere it has been mentioned that a case has been registered for stealing of vehicle. Evidence also revealed that, originally vehicles were detained at 2:45 PM and finally produced at the office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime) at 6:00 PM which shows that, the vehicles were detained in Lumdiengjri Police Station for more than 3 hours 15 minutes. It is also apparent that, (Ext. 3) seizure list was prepared at the SP’s office, though articles were already recovered at Lumdiengjri Police Station which shows that seizure and seizure list were not at the same time and the vehicles in question as well as the contraband items remained in the custody of the Lumdiengjri Police Station for more than 3 hours 15 minutes. Section-100 of the CrPC Sub-Sections (4), (5), (7) & (8) made clear provision, how to make search and seizure. Any seizure in violation of Section-100 CrPC in our view is not seizure at all. In this instant case, it is apparent that seizure has taken place in one place and seizure list prepared in another place, therefore, in our view, deposition given by PW-1 suffers from serious doubts. 9. PW-2- Independent witness, it appears to us that he has been called to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Shillong at around 8:00 PM and showed 10(ten) Nos. of packets and he was asked to sign on the seizure list which he did as directed and returned to his shop. 9. PW-2- Independent witness, it appears to us that he has been called to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Shillong at around 8:00 PM and showed 10(ten) Nos. of packets and he was asked to sign on the seizure list which he did as directed and returned to his shop. It appears that, he has signed the panchanama, packets seized etc. From his deposition we find that, he did not know what were the things inside the packets. So, from the deposition of the independent seizure witness, it appears that the entire search and seizure were made in his absence and he was a mere signatory on the seizure list exhibited and not as an eye witness. 10. PW-3. From the deposition of PW-3, it is clear that he received source of information that 2(two) stolen vehicles from Guwahati were heading towards Mizoram, as a result, they put Nakas and ultimately, the 2(two) stolen vehicles were intercepted and detained by Lumdiengjri Traffic Branch. He also admitted that information received was not reduced in writing. From his evidence also it is clear that, the contraband items not to be sold without prescription. So, analyzing the evidence of PW-3 that he received source of information about the stolen vehicles, it appears that no GD entry etc. has been made nor any case has been registered for stealing vehicles against the accused persons which is suspicious. Besides that, instead of registering the case for stealing vehicles, they have suddenly recovered some contraband items from the vehicles, that too after 3 hours 15 minutes. It is a principle of law that, in course of investigation of any cases, if the police find any contraband items, then in that case police is bound to start investigation taking into consideration the provision of NDPS Act. In this instant case, we find that in spite of the contraband items recovered, investigation has been conducted in a very haphazard manner rather we should say investigation was not foolproof and not in conformity with the Provision of NDPS Act, 1985. 11. From the evidence of PW-4, it is clear to us that, Diazepam is a medicine which is used for injection and schedule drugs cannot be sold without Doctor’s prescription, therefore, it is clear that items recovered were not banned drugs but they can be used only on the basis of Doctor’s prescription. 12. 11. From the evidence of PW-4, it is clear to us that, Diazepam is a medicine which is used for injection and schedule drugs cannot be sold without Doctor’s prescription, therefore, it is clear that items recovered were not banned drugs but they can be used only on the basis of Doctor’s prescription. 12. PW-5 Police Officials, from his depositions it appears that, vehicles were seized at 1:30 PM at Jhalupara point. 13. PW-6 also repeats the evidence given by PW-5 about detaining of the stolen vehicles. 14. From the deposition of PW-7, it is not clear as and when he signed the seizure list and panchanama. Evidence of PW-7 does not resemble with the independent seizure witness. 15. PW-8, another seizure witness. From his evidence, it is not clear whether search and seizure were made in his presence. 16. Evidence of PW-9 and PW-10 did not throw much light on the case. 17. Evidence of PW-11 and PW-12 also did not disclose whether they were present during the search and seizure of the contraband items in question. 18. PW-13 has just endorsed the case for investigation to SI GR Sangma. 19. Evidence of PW-14 disclosed that, he was working in Rebecca Drugs Store situated at Aizawl Mizoram functioning as a salesman, clerk and accountant and also placed order for Drugs Store. In the month of March, 2011 he purchased Xypo injections from Astha Pharmacy, Guwahati and sent the same through Sumo driver (convict) who was going to Mizoram. From his evidence, it is also clear that he produced to the IO i) Batch No. (ii) Xerox copy of the order for supply of Diazepam (iii) Xerox copy of the letter from Rebecca Drugs Centre, Aizawl to the Manager of Astha Pharmacy (iv) Xerox copy of the Trinity Medical Store, Hospital, Aizawl written to the Manager, Rebecca Drugs Centre, (v) Xerox copy of the National Rural Health Mission, Director of Health Services Mizoram written by Mission Director, NRHA to M/s Trinity Medical Stores asking for supply of essentials drugs of SC, PHC, CHC and Sub-District Hospital (vi) Xerox copy of quotation rate sent by M/s Trinity Store to Director NRHA (vii) Declaration Certificate from Rebecca Drugs Centre. 20. 20. From his evidence also it is further evident that, National Rural Health Centre had placed order on Trinity Medical Store for supply of essential drugs and Trinity Medical Store Hospital had given order to Rebecca Drugs Centre and Rebecca Drugs Centre had placed order with Astha Pharmacy which was sent to Astha Pharmacy by currier. Out of 1255 samples ordered, 500 Nos, were handed over to PW-14 by Astha Pharmacy and the same he had sent to Mizoram through the convict Shri. Krishha Bahadur Thapa. From the evidence of PW-14, it is understood that medicine in question schedule drugs purchased by Rebecca Drugs Centre from Astha Pharmacy, Guwahati. 21. If it is so, in our view, the case will not fall under NDPS Act because schedule drugs can be used only by medical prescription as deposed by PW-3 and PW4. 22. On further perusal of deposition of PW-15 the IO concerned, it appears that, he has seized the documents from PW-14 who is the employee of Rebecca Drugs Centre, Aizawl and sent the drugs through Shri. Krishna Bahadur Thapa. The IO admitted that, he has not examined anyone from Astha Pharmacy who had issued a receipt for purchase of ZEPOSE injection of 500 vials nor he has examined anyone who has ordered the drugs. From his evidence also it appears that, documents seized from PW-14 has not been exhibited before the learned Court below rather he deposed that, the documents which has been seized from PW-14 are kept in Malkhana and did not make any attempt to investigate as per seizure of all those documents. 23. So, after analysis all the evidence on record as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the facts and circumstances of the case does not encourage or empowered the police officials to register the case under NDPS Act because from evidence witness of PW-14, it is clear that schedule drugs were purchased by Rebecca Drugs Centre, Mizoram from Astha Pharmacy, Guwahati. Secondly, this purchase was made on the basis of the order placed by Rebecca Drugs Centre. Moreover, in this instant case, the IO and other superior officers did not bother to even examine the owner of the pharmacy named above as well as the authority of National Rural Health Mission. Secondly, this purchase was made on the basis of the order placed by Rebecca Drugs Centre. Moreover, in this instant case, the IO and other superior officers did not bother to even examine the owner of the pharmacy named above as well as the authority of National Rural Health Mission. Besides that, it is not the case that, the convict Shri. Krishna Bahadur Thapa has procured the medicines illegally from some known or unknown source or smuggling for trade. 24. After given our anxious thought, we could not understand why PW-3 did not register the case for stealing of vehicles against the convict and to inquire into the matter, prosecution witness is totally silent about it. It is also not understood, instead of registering the case for stealing of vehicles why the case has been registered under NDPS Act when the facts and circumstances of the case are different and does not encourage to take action under NDPS Act or is it that the police officials are too smart and just to frame the case against the convict. We left the answer to the Police Department and we remind that our law does not permit that innocent should be harass and guilty to go scot-free. Our law is based on principle “Truth to Prevail”. We also strongly expressed our displeasure the way search and seizure has been done as reflected by witnesses which is highly un-desirable, un-expected and condemnable. In this instant case, the so called stolen vehicles in question were detained in police custody i.e. Lumdiengjri Police Station for more than 3 hours 15 minutes and then produced in the office of the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime) at around 6:00PM, so the implant of the items cannot be ruled out. Moreover, search and seizure were carried out in violation of Section-100 CrPC r/w Section-42 NDPS Act, 1985. From the contents of the deposition of PW-2, it appears to us that, he is a mere signatory on the search and seizure list but not as an eye witness. Therefore, we find that the entire investigation is faulty, either intentionally or due to lack of knowledge and create a bunch of doubts. 25. It is s settle principle of law that, Court cannot convict a person for moral satisfaction, prosecution to establish the case beyond doubt, if there is doubt, it must be resolve in favour of the accused. Therefore, we find that the entire investigation is faulty, either intentionally or due to lack of knowledge and create a bunch of doubts. 25. It is s settle principle of law that, Court cannot convict a person for moral satisfaction, prosecution to establish the case beyond doubt, if there is doubt, it must be resolve in favour of the accused. If there are two interpretations, one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused, it is to be resolved in favour of the accused. (1999) GLR-421 (Para-28). 26. For the reasons as discussed above and after given our anxious thought, we do not get scope to satisfy ourselves with the impugned Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2013. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 30.04.2013 is hereby set aside and the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Shillong is directed to take necessary steps to release the convict from custody immediately, if he is not require in any other case or cases. 27. Court Master is directed to return the CD along with a copy of this order to the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Shillong for compliance. 28. Registry is also directed to send a copy of this Judgment & Order to the Director General of Police, Meghalaya and to return the Lower Court case record to the Court concerned immediately. 29. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter stands disposed of.