JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 31.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions trial No. 05/3 of 2014, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried alongwith another accused Tarsem Singh, for offence under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 Lakh, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years, for the commission of offence under Section 15(c) read with Section 29 of the Act. 2. A separate appeal was filed by another accused Tarsem Singh, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2015. He was acquitted by this Court on 11.9.2015. It was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of above appeal that accused Tara Chand has also filed a criminal appeal. Hence, this appeal is being decided separately. 3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW-10 Inspector Gurdeep Singh, PW-4 ASI Suresh Kumar, PW-2 C. Sunil Kumar and C. Balwinder Singh were present at Dabat Majari on patrolling duty on 14.11.2013 at about 3.00 am in an official vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69A-0974 and at about 5.10 am, a silver coloured Ford Ikon car bearing registration No. HR- 51J-1694 came from Dabat side. It was signalled to stop. Two persons were sitting in the car. They disclosed their identity. On being asked, the accused could not produce documents of the Car. Suspicion arose. Vehicle was checked. Dickey of the Car was opened by accused Tara Chand. In the dickey of the car, three plastic bags (Ext. P1 to Ext. P-3) were found. Two plastic bags were black in colour and third was white in colour. Small plastic bag was found containing in it 10 polythene packets while other two were containing 20 polythene packets (Ext. P4 to Ext. P53). One of the polythene packets was opened by Inspector Gurdeep Singh from the small plastic bag. It was found to be containing poppy straw on the basis of experience by Inspector Gurdeep Singh. Other two packets were checked, each of them contained 20 polythene packets containing poppy straw. P4 to Ext. P53). One of the polythene packets was opened by Inspector Gurdeep Singh from the small plastic bag. It was found to be containing poppy straw on the basis of experience by Inspector Gurdeep Singh. Other two packets were checked, each of them contained 20 polythene packets containing poppy straw. After weighing, each polythene packet was found to be 2 kg. It was a lonely place. No independent witness was available. Polythene packet which was opened was sealed with two seal impressions of seal ‘C’ and it was put back in the same plastic bag. The plastic bag was then sealed with ten seal impressions of seal ‘C’. Total weight was found to be 100 kgs. NCB-I form (Ext. PW-5/B) was filled in triplicate. Sample seal was taken on separate piece of cloth. Seal was handed over to ASI Suresh Kumar. Seizure memo was prepared. Rukka Ext. PW- 2/B was drawn. It was handed over to Constable Sunil Kumar with the direction to carry it to police station Kot Kehloor for registration of FIR. Site plan, Ext. PW-10/A was prepared. Inspector Gurdeep Singh handed over case property, sample of seal, NCB form, seizure memo to PW-5 MHC Sukhdev. MHC Sukhdev made necessary entry in the Malkhana register at Sr. No. 320 vide Ext. PW-5/A. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. MHC Sukhdev sent the articles through ASI Suresh Kumar (PW-4) on 16.11.2013 with the direction to deposit the same in SFSL Junga vide RC No. 137/13. Special report was also prepared. Result of chemical analysis is Ext. PW-5/D. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. According to them, they were falsely implicated. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 6. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment of conviction. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 8. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 6. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment of conviction. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 8. PW-2 Constable Sunil Kumar deposed that on 14.11.2013 at 3.00 am, he alongwith Inspector Gurdeep Singh, ASI Suresh Kumar and C. Balwinder Singh had gone in official vehicle towards Majari on patrolling. A naka had been put near the bridge at Majari Khud. At 5.10 am, a silver coloured Ikon bearing registration No. HR-51J-1694 came from Dabat side. Two persons were occupying the vehicle. Vehicle was signalled was being driven by Tara Chand. Accused opened the dickey of the car. Three plastic bags were found inside the dickey. Two black coloured and one white coloured. White bag was found to be containing 10 polythene bags and other two 20 each. One polythene bag was opened by SHO. It was found to be containing poppy straw. 2-3 bags were separately weighed and each was found to be 2 kg. Polythene bag which was opened was sealed with two seal impressions of ‘C’. It was put back in the same plastic bag, which was containing ten polythene bags. All the three bags were sealed with ten seal impressions of ‘C’. Total weight of the poppy husk was 100 kgs. NCB form in triplicate was filled in. Ruka Ext. PW- 2/B was prepared by SHO Gurdeep Singh. It was handed over to him at 6.20 am. He reached the Police Station Kot Kehloor at 7.30 am. On the basis of Ruka, FIR Ext. PW-2/C was registered. Case property was produced by the Public Prosecutor while examining PW-2 Sunil Kumar. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that the place where vehicle was parked, fell in village Majari. 9. PW-3 Satish Kumar corroborated the statement of PW-2 Sunil Kumar about the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of search, seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. Parcels Ext. P1 to Ext. P3 were opened while recording statement of PW-3 Constable Satish Kumar. All the three plastic bags were sealed with 10 seals of ‘C’ and 6 seals of FSL Junga. On opening Ext. P1 was found to be containing 20 polythene bags white in colour. Ext. Parcels Ext. P1 to Ext. P3 were opened while recording statement of PW-3 Constable Satish Kumar. All the three plastic bags were sealed with 10 seals of ‘C’ and 6 seals of FSL Junga. On opening Ext. P1 was found to be containing 20 polythene bags white in colour. Ext. P2, on opening was found to be containing 20 polythene bags white in colour. Ext. P3 was found to be containing 10 polythene packets white in colour. Each polythene bag contained poppy straw. 10. PW-4 ASI Suresh Kumar also deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of search, seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. According to him, on 14.11.2013, ASI Sukhdev handed Ext. P1 to Ext. P3, NCB form, copy of FIR, copy of seizure memo docket and specimen vide RC No. 137/13 for depositing in FSL Junga. He deposited the same at Junga safely. 11. PW-5 MHC Sukhdev deposed that SHO Gurdeep Singh on 14.11.2013 deposited Ext. P1 to Ext. P3 duly sealed with 10 impressions of seal ‘C’, stated to be containing 100 kgs poppy straw and specimen seal, NCB form in triplicate, one Ford Ikon silver grey coloured. He entered the same at Sr. No. 320 in the Malkhana Register. He proved Ext. PW-5/A. He sent the sealed parcel Ext. P1 to Ext. P3 alongwith NCB form in triplicate, specimen of seal, copy of FIR alongwith docket vide RC No. 137/13 through Suresh Kumar to FSL Junga. On 12.12.2013 parcels Ext. P1 to Ext. P-3 duly sealed with seals of FSL, NCB-I form Ext. PW-5/B, chemical report Ext. PW-5/D were got received from Geeta Ram and Constable Sanjay. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that at Sr. No. 320, there was overwriting. He admitted in his cross-examination that correction ink had been used at Sr. No. 320. He admitted that register was not paged. 12. PW-8 Sanjay Kumar deposed that alongwith Geeta Ram was sent to FSL Junga for bringing back the case property and report and report to Police Station Kot Kehloor. They brought case property and report and deposited the same with MHC at Kot Kehloor police station at 11.50 pm on the same day. 13. PW-10 Gurdeep Singh also deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of search, seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. According to him, no independent witness was available. They brought case property and report and deposited the same with MHC at Kot Kehloor police station at 11.50 pm on the same day. 13. PW-10 Gurdeep Singh also deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of search, seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. According to him, no independent witness was available. He prepared Ruka Ext. PW-2/B. It was sent to the police station through Constable Sanjeev Kumar for registration of the case. In his cross-examination, he admitted that from the place where Naka was set up, village Dabat was 2 kms while village Majari was 1 kms. He categorically deposed that efforts were not made to associate independent witnesses. Vehicle was parked at a distance of 100 metres from bridge towards Majari. Constable Sunil Kumar was sent alongwith Ruka to the police Station. However, PW-4 ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that Constable Sunil Kumar had gone on foot to police station from the spot. He returned at 10 am. In between statements of witnesses were recorded and both the accused were arrested. 14. Naka was set up at 3.10 am on 14.11.2013. A Ford Ikon bearing registration No. HR-51J-1694 was signalled to stop. Two occupants were questioned. Contraband was recovered. The prosecution has not examined any independent witness while carrying out search, seizure and sealing proceedings at the spot. It has come in the statement of PW-10 Gurdeep Singh that village Dabat was at a distance of 2 kms from the spot where Naka was laid and village Majari was at a distance of more than 1 km. He has also admitted that no efforts were made to associate independent witnesses. It was not a place which was very secluded or isolated, two villages, Dabat and Majari, were situate nearby. If efforts had been made, independent witnesses could also have been associated during the course of investigation to inspire confidence in the manner in which accused was apprehended and codal formalities of search, seizure and sampling were completed at the spot and contraband was recovered. Very fact that Naka was put upon the road suggests that there was regular flow of traffic. Statement of PW-10 Gurdeep Singh is that only Ford Ikon vehicle was checked and no other vehicle was checked, can not be believed. Very fact that Naka was put upon the road suggests that there was regular flow of traffic. Statement of PW-10 Gurdeep Singh is that only Ford Ikon vehicle was checked and no other vehicle was checked, can not be believed. Police should have sought help from the occupants of the vehicles which were bound to ply on the road, moreover, when a Naka was put up. In the absence of independent witnesses, it is true that statements of official witnesses can be relied if same inspire confidence. However, in this case, no efforts were made by the police to join independent witnesses from villages Dabat and Majari. Case property was firstly produced before the Court when statement of PW-2 Sunil Kumar was recorded and same was again produced when statement of PW-3 Satish Kumar was recorded and it was opened in the Court. It was produced by the Public Prosecutor. Who has brought the case property from Malkhana to the Court has not been proved. The entry in the Malkhana register to this effect that who has taken the property to the Court, is necessary as per Punjab Police Rules. Para 22.70 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of H.P. reads as under:- “22.70. Register No. XIX - This register shall be maintained in Form 22.70. With the exception of articles already included in register No. XVI every article placed in the storeroom shall be entered in this register and the removal of any such article shall be noted in the appropriate column. The register may be destroyed three years after the date of the last entry.” The register is to be maintained in Form 22.70. It reads as under. “Form No. 22.70. POLICE STATION DISTRICT Register No. XIX.-Store-Room Register (Part-I) Column –– 1. Serial No. 2. No. of first information report (if any), from whom taken (if taken from a person) and from what place. 3. Date of deposit and name of depositor. 4. Description of property. 5. Reference to report asking for order regarding disposal of property. 6. How disposed of and date. 7. Signature of recipient (including person by whom dispatched). 8. Remarks. (To be prepared on a quarter sheet of native paper).” 15. 3. Date of deposit and name of depositor. 4. Description of property. 5. Reference to report asking for order regarding disposal of property. 6. How disposed of and date. 7. Signature of recipient (including person by whom dispatched). 8. Remarks. (To be prepared on a quarter sheet of native paper).” 15. It is necessary that as and when case property is taken out from Malkhana, necessary entry is required to be made in the Malkhana Register and also at the time when case property is redeposited in the Malkhana. Case property in NDPS cases is required to be kept in safe custody from the date of seizure till its production in the Court. It is also necessary that when case property is taken out from Malkhana, DDR is made and also at the time when case property is re-deposited in the Malkhana. Thus, it casts doubt whether it is the same case property which was recovered from the accused and sent to FSL or it was case property of some other case. 16. In view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 31.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions trial No. 05/3 of 2014 is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the commission of offence under Section 15(c) read with Section 29 of the Act. He is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required by the police in any other case. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused, be refunded to him. Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send the same forthwith to the Superintendent of Jail concerned.