JUDGMENT : Tapash Mookherjee, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04-08-2007 and 06-08-2007 respectively passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter described for convenience as N.D.P.S. Act, at Suri, Birbhum in C. Case No. 05/1993. By the said judgment and order learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. and sentenced the appellant to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees ten lakh only) I.D. to suffer R.I. for two and a half years more. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment of conviction and order of sentence the accused Ramapada Saha alias Munnalal Saha filed in the present appeal. The facts leading to the appeal briefly stated are as follows:- 2. On the basis of a secret information, a team of Intelligence Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Beharampore Cell, Murshidabad raided in the house of the appellant at Nalhati, District Birbhum in the morning of 25.07.1993 and during such raid they found 33.7 kg. of Ganja kept in different containers inside a bed room in the house. The entire quantum of Ganja thus recovered from the house of the appellant had been instantly seized through a seizure list, and samples of the seized Ganja had been drawn and preserved separately in presence of the witnesses and after such acts of search and seizure the appellant was taken to the office of the seizure-team at Beharampore. Notice was served upon the appellant under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the appellant thereafter made a statement confessing his guilt. The samples of the seized articles had been sent to F.S.L. and the report confirmed that they were ' flowering tops of Cannabis Plant Ganja. An inventory of the seized articles had been done subsequently by Judicial Magistrate and after completion of all statutory acts a P. R. had been submitted against the appellant according to law in usual course. Subsequently, trial commenced against the appellant in the Court of the learned Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act at Suri, Birbhum framing a charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. against the appellant. 3. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded his innocence. 4. Subsequently, trial commenced against the appellant in the Court of the learned Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act at Suri, Birbhum framing a charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. against the appellant. 3. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded his innocence. 4. To prove the charge against the appellant prosecution examined eight witnesses in total and proved some documents in the Trial Court. Defence tendered no evidence whatsoever. 5. The first point raised by Mr. Basu, the senior Counsel for the appellant was that the complainant/prosecution report which is the foundation of any case has not been brought in the evidence on record in the case and this is a serious fault in the prosecution case. On scrutiny of the L.C.R. it is found that the prosecution report alleged to have been submitted by the complainant, i.e., The Directorate of Intelligence is not on record. The complaint and/or the prosecution report as the case may be, is always the foundation of any case which includes the primary version of the prosecution, but such an important document has not been brought on record. The omission is definitely very serious for the prosecution case and Mr. Mitter, learned Counsel for the State/Defendant had no reply to it. 6. The next contention of Mr. Basu was that the mandatory provision in Section 42 (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with in this case and according to him, strict compliance of Section 42 (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory and its non-compliance is always fatal for the prosecution. In reply, Mr. Mitter, submitted that the provision has been substantially complied with in the case. 7. Sri. Nagendra Nath Mondal (P.W.-1) was an Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Cell at Beharampore, at the relevant time, and he was the prime witness in the case. In his evidence Sri. Mondal stated that on the basis of a secret information to the effect that the appellant stored a huge quantum of Ganja in the appellant’s house at Nalhati and after getting such information he reported the fact to his higher authority and he proved a carbon copy but bearing his original signature on the written information allegedly sent by him to his authority and the said document has been marked Exhibit- 1. In the said document, the fact of receiving the aforesaid secret information is recorded and the document had been described as the 'information report, but there is no proof as to how he sent it to his superior authority, as pointed out by Sri. Basu. In reply, Mr. Mitter argued that P.W.-1 during his evidence stated that he sent the information to his superior and his statement on the point can be accepted as true. 8. It is true that Exhibit- 1 records the secret information and it is addressed to D.R.I.-1, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: Zonal Unit: Calcutta, Beharampore Cell Murshida-bad. During his cross-examination P.W.-1 stated that the original document is lying in their head office at Calcutta, but no effort was made to call for that document from their head office. P.W.-1 stated further that there were office records to show that the document was sent to their head office and other offices as well. He further stated that he shall search for such document in his office to show that the document had been actually transmitted to the offices of his superior. But no such record has been produced in the case. It cannot, therefore, be stated with certainty that the document has been really transmitted. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the provision in Section 42 (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act. has been proved to have been complied with. 9. In the decisions reported in Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana [(2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 502] : ( AIR 2013 SC 357 ), Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana [(2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 212] : ( AIR 2013 SC 953 ) and Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana [(2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 130] all cited by Mr. Basu, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that delayed compliance of the provision in Section 42 (2) N.D.P.S. Act may be permissible in some cases, but non-compliance of the provision vitiates the entire proceeding. As mentioned above, the compliance has not been proved in the case at all. This is, therefore, another big hole in the prosecution case. 10. According to the prosecution case, Ganja weighing about 33.7 kg. As mentioned above, the compliance has not been proved in the case at all. This is, therefore, another big hole in the prosecution case. 10. According to the prosecution case, Ganja weighing about 33.7 kg. were recovered from the house of the appellant in different containers and after the recovery and separation of samples, the seized articles had been packed and sealed, but those seized articles have not been produced in the Trial Court and no explanation has been offered for it and according to Mr. Basu this is another serious flaw in the prosecution case and Mr. Basu relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Nilesh Suryakant Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 527]. In the aforesaid decisions it has been held that non-production of the seized contraband goods during trial creates doubts in the prosecution case regarding the seizure and the best way to prove the seizure is to produce the seized article before the Trial Court and mere oral statement of the witnesses on the seizure is not sufficient for the purpose. 11. P.W.-1 in his evidence stated that on 25.07.1993 he along with K. K. Hazra, S. K. Ghosh, D. Saha, Sati Halder, S.C. Sarkar and two other local witnesses raided in the house of the appellant at Nalhati and seized from a bed room in the house Ganja weighing 33.7 kg. kept in different ways. He also stated that during such raid and seizure the appellant was only present in the house. Sri. K. K. Halder (P.W.-2), Smt. Sati Halder (P.W.-3), Subhas Chandra Sarkar (P.W.-4) and Swadhin Kumar Ghosh (P.W.-5) in their evidence on the point of such raid and seizure supported P.W.-1, but no document has been produced to show that the appellant was the exclusive owner of the house from where the contraband articles had been allegedly seized. In fact, there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution to show that there was ever any effort on the part of the Intelligence Officers raiding the house, to search for any document or to produce any other dependable evidence to prove the ownership of the house in question. 12. In the decisions reported in Mohd. In fact, there is no evidence on the part of the prosecution to show that there was ever any effort on the part of the Intelligence Officers raiding the house, to search for any document or to produce any other dependable evidence to prove the ownership of the house in question. 12. In the decisions reported in Mohd. Alam Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau and another [JT 1996 (2) S.C. 636] : ( AIR 1996 SC 3033 ) and Makhan Barman v. State of West Bengal [2014 (2) CLJ (Cal) 104] : (2014 Cri LJ (NOC) 477 (Cal)) (passed by this Court) and cited by Mr. Basu. It has been held that to find an accused guilty of the offence of possessing any contraband article under N.D.P.S. Act the prosecution has to produce independent evidence to show the ownership of the house from where such contraband article is alleged to have been seized. 13. In this case two witnesses, namely, Ramesh Ghosh (P.W.-6) and Balashwar Bhakat (P.W.-8) have been examined by the prosecution as independent witnesses to prove the alleged search and seizure of Ganja from the house of the appellant. Signatures of those two witnesses appear on the seizure lists also. But during evidence, P.W.-6 stated that the officer (Daroga Babu) obtained his signatures on the seizure lists on blank papers. He stated further that he accompanied the raiding officers to Beharampore Office where also he signed on a blank white paper. The seizure list (Exhibit-2) is a printed form. However, the seizure of the samples, i.e., Exhibit-4 (collectively) is on a plain piece of paper. According to Mr. Mitter, P.W.-6 deliberately told a lie. Be that as it may, P.W.-6 had not been declared 'Hostile by the prosecution. Surprisingly a suggestion was put to P.W.-6 by the prosecution to the effect that he stated lies. Similarly, P.W.-8 also stated that no search or seizure in the house of the appellant took place in his presence on 25-07-1993. However, he proved his signatures on some documents. He described one such document as a seizure list. But during the concluding part of his evidence-in-chief he repeated that he did not know whether any officer of the Intelligence Department seized any article. P.W.-8 stated further that he went to Beharampore with the appellant and the seized articles, where he had put his signatures on some blank pieces of papers. But during the concluding part of his evidence-in-chief he repeated that he did not know whether any officer of the Intelligence Department seized any article. P.W.-8 stated further that he went to Beharampore with the appellant and the seized articles, where he had put his signatures on some blank pieces of papers. P.W.-8 had not also been declared 'Hostile by the prosecution. The fact being so, the prosecution cannot disown the evidence of P.W.’s 6 and 8. The decisions reported in Raja Ram-v. State of Rajasthan [2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1050] and Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1037] : ( AIR 2005 SC 2804 ), cited by Mr. Basu are relied on the point. In the circumstances if the version of P.W.’s-6 and 8 are considered to be the version of the prosecution, then the entire case of search and recovery of ' Ganja stands on a vulnerable condition. 14. P.W.-7 was a Judicial Magistrate posted at Suri at the relevant point of time and he certified an inventory of the seized article and his report had been marked Exhibit-6. According to the learned Trial Court, such a report of P.W.-7 is the primary evidence which does establish the prosecution’s case of search and alleged recovery. The learned Trial Court missed the point that such an inventory had been done long after the alleged seizure and examination of the samples by the expert. In fact, what had been certified by the learned Magistrate was the weight of the articles produced before him and the inventory had not been done according to the provisions in Section 52 A of the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, the evidence of P.W.-7 or his report cannot be termed as the primary evidence of search and seizure as considered by the learned Trial Court. 15. According to the prosecution case, a notice under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act had been served upon the appellant and in response to such notice the appellant made a statement voluntarily confessing his guilt. The aforesaid statement had been marked Exhibit-3 and 3/3 collectively. The aforesaid notice has not been produced in the case. From the statements of the witnesses it is found that the appellant had been taken by P.W.-1 to their office at Beharampore. The aforesaid statement had been marked Exhibit-3 and 3/3 collectively. The aforesaid notice has not been produced in the case. From the statements of the witnesses it is found that the appellant had been taken by P.W.-1 to their office at Beharampore. In fact, the appellant was virtually in the custody of P.W.-1 when such statement in writing had been made by the appellant. It is interesting to mention that in the concluding part of the statement the appellant mentioned that during the search of his house the searching officers caused no loss or damage to any of his properties and they had not subjected him to any harassment or ill-treatment also. Such a statement in our considered opinion is totally uncalled for which gives a hint against the voluntary nature of such statement. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above the statement does not deserve any serious consequence. 16. So, for the reasons discussed above we are not convinced that the prosecution could prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned Trial Court was, therefore, wrong in law, to find the appellant guilty of the offence alleged. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court should, therefore, be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court on 04-08-2007 and 06-08-2007 in the case are set aside. The appellant is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant is accordingly acquitted. He be set at liberty at once if his detention is not legally required in connection with any other case. 17. Department to take steps under Section 388, Cr. P.C. 18. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Counsels for the parties upon compliance of all formalities. Appeal allowed.