JUDGMENT : BANSI LAL BHAT, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on 6-9-2012 by virtue whereof respondents Bupinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Ravi Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ' accused' ) have been acquitted of charge under Sections 8/21/22, NDPS Act. 2. The State has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment of acquittal on the grounds set forth in the memo of appeal. 3. Prosecution version is that on 13-2-2010, a Maruti Car bearing registration No. JKO2AC-9699 was intercepted at Jeevan Nagar, Jammu, by the Police Team while checking the vehicles. Accused Bupinder Singh was found driving the Maruti Car while other two accused were seated in the Car. The checking conducted by the Police Party yielded a polythene bag lying under the driving seat. 15 boxes of Spasmo Proxyvon, each containing six strips of 24 capsules were found in the polythene bag. The total number of capsules was found to be 2160. Accused Ravi Kumar seated on the front seat was found in possession of polythene bag containing 11 boxes, each box containing six strips with each strip having 24 capsules, total 1584 capsules. Accused Sukhdev Singh sitting on the back seat was found in possession of polythene bag containing 14 boxes, each having 6 strips and each strip containing 24 capsules, total 2016 proxyvon capsules. Thus, in all, capsules numbering 5760 were recovered from the accused. Sub-Inspector Bashir Ahmed wrote a docket and forwarded the same to Police Station Stawari, Jammu for registration of case. Investigation conducted by SHO Police Station Satwari culminated in filing of charge-sheet against the accused, who pleaded not guilty before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has adduced evidence to bring home guilt against the accused. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the trial, learned Trial Court found that the prosecution evidence was full of contradictions and there was no corroboration from independent witnesses. It accordingly, recorded the acquittal of accused. 4. Heard and gone through the record minutely. 5. It emanates from the record that, consequent upon forwarding of docket by SI Bashir Ahmed to Police Station Stawari, SHO went on spot, prepared the seizure memo pertaining to recovery of proxyvon capsules. It appears that the recovery was affected by a patrolling team headed by SI Bashir Ahmed. 4. Heard and gone through the record minutely. 5. It emanates from the record that, consequent upon forwarding of docket by SI Bashir Ahmed to Police Station Stawari, SHO went on spot, prepared the seizure memo pertaining to recovery of proxyvon capsules. It appears that the recovery was affected by a patrolling team headed by SI Bashir Ahmed. SHO seized the recovered material after taking two capsules from each bag as sample and seized the same. He prepared the personal search and arrest memos of accused. The remaining stock of capsules too was sealed separately. It further appears that two prosecution witnesses including SI Bashir Ahmed turned hostile at the trial. Testimony of SI Bashir Ahmed leaves no room for doubt that the docket forming the basis of FIR was scribed by Munshi of Police Station, who was not present on spot. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that recovery memo mentions the FIR number which could not have been allotted before registration of case while recovery was made by the Police intercepting party before the docket was forwarded to Police Station for registration of FIR. PW-Vikram Kumar has resiled from the prosecution version by maintaining that the accused were caught near Digiana Ashram. Prosecution evidence is not convincing on the material aspect of search and recovery of alleged contraband. This apart, link evidence in the case is missing. Prosecution has failed to place on record contemporary documentary evidence to demonstrate that seized packets of the samples and the remaining stock of alleged contraband were kept in malkhana before forwarding of samples to FSL for chemical examination. From the testimony of PW-Pawan Abrol, Assistant Scientific Officer, FSL Jammu, it emerges that the samples were forwarded to FSL on 20-2-2010 and the same were found containing a Narcotic Analgesic identified as Dextroproprosyphene napsylate. In absence of production of Malkhana register to prove the entry record of deposit and withdrawal. of samples from Malkhana and taking note of the fact that Officer-In-charge of Malkhana has not been examined at the trial to establish safe custody of the representative samples from 13th of February, 2010 to 20th of February, 2010, it is a foregone conclusion that the link evidence to establish factum of the samples examined at FSL being representative samples of the seized contraband, to hold that the seized substance was a Narcotic Drug, is absent. Procedure laid down in terms of guidelines issued by the Narcotic Control Board for search, recovery, seizure of contraband and lifting of samples and for safe custody till its delivery in FSL having been not adhered to it is manifestly clear that a fair procedure has not been adopted in the matter of search, recovery, seizure of contraband and absence of link evidence goes to the root of the case and vitiates the entire exercise of search, recovery and seizure of alleged contraband. 6. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge has recorded other cogent reasons as well which cause serious doubt on prosecution version. However, in our considered opinion, the conclusion drawn by us hereinabove are sufficient to throw out the prosecution case. It is unfortunate that the State Police has not imparted training to its Investigating Officers to acquire professional skill for handling sensitive matters in relation to search, recovery and seizure of narcotic Drugs. The State has to accord priority to the subject and ensure that the guidelines issued by Narcotic Control Board are strictly adhered to. The procedural safeguards cannot be diluted, given the stringent nature of provisions embodied in NDPS Act. Observing of fair procedure is imperative for justifying a conviction under a law like NDPS Act. 7. In view of the aforementioned observations, we find no substantial or compelling reasons to disturb the findings recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.