JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 11.6.2013 rendered by the Special Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2010, whereby the appellantaccused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused Samander Singh was acquitted by the trial court. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 29.7.2010, PW-10 ASI Ram Lal, the-then Investigating Officer Police Station, Sadar Mandi alongwith PW-9 Constable Suresh Kumar, PW-7 LHC Narpat Ram, Constable Kashmir Singh and Constable Dhameshwar Singh was present at Bindvani on Naka duty. A HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP-69-1094 came from Kullu side at about 6:15 p.m. It was enroute Manali to Dellhi. The bus was stopped for the purpose of checking. The Police officers entered the bus. Accused Prahlad was occupying seat No. 23 and accused Samander Singh was occupying seat No. 24. They started behaving strangely. They were brought down from the bus. Accused Prahalad Singh was in possession of rucksack, which he had kept on his lap. PW-8 Mohan Singh along with Conductor was associated in the investigation by the police. The police officials gave their search to the accused. The rucksack was searched. It was found containing pillow type bag. It was opened. It contained 4 kgs of cannabis. The pillow cover was again put into rucksack. Thereafter, it was put in a parcel. It was sealed with 16 seal of impression “A”. NCB form in triplicate Ext. PW2/B was prepared. Specimen seal impression was also affixed. The parcel containing contraband was seized vide memo Ext. PW7/B. Rukka Ext. PW10/A was prepared. It was sent to the Police Station through PW-9 Constable Suresh Kumar. FIR Ext. PW1/A was registered. Accused were arrested. The parcel containing contraband along with sample seal and NCB form were produced before PW-6 Surender Pal. He re-sealed the parcel containing contraband with 6 seals of impression “C”. PW7/B. Rukka Ext. PW10/A was prepared. It was sent to the Police Station through PW-9 Constable Suresh Kumar. FIR Ext. PW1/A was registered. Accused were arrested. The parcel containing contraband along with sample seal and NCB form were produced before PW-6 Surender Pal. He re-sealed the parcel containing contraband with 6 seals of impression “C”. He also affixed the seal impression on NCB form and specimen of the seal used was taken separately vide resealing certificate Ext. PW2/A. The case property alongwith sample seal, NCB form and seizure memo etc. was deposited with PW-2 HC Anil Kumar. He made entry in the mallkhana register vide abstract Ext. PW2/D. The contraband was sent to F.S.L., Junga through PW-5 Constable Jiwa Nand. The chemical examiner report is Ext. PA and special report is Ext. PW3/C. Police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused Prahalad Singh and acquitted accused Samander Singh, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the accused, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Bhup Singh has deposed that he was posted as MHC in Police Station, Sadar Mandi in the month of July, 2010. On 29.7.2010, at about 8:35 p.m. Constable Suresh Kumar brought a rukka mark-A to the police Station. On the basis of Rukka mark ‘A’, FIR Ext. PW-1/A was registered. 8. PW-2 Head Constable Anil Kumar has deposed that the case property consisting one parcel, which was sealed with 16 seals of seal impression “A” was resealed with 6 seals of seal ‘C” stated to be containing 4 kgs of cannabis along with NCB form in triplicate, copy of sealing/resealing memo, specimen seal impressions of seal “A” and C” were deposited with him by Inspector SHO Surender Pal. He made necessary entries in register No. 19 at serial No. 1124. He made necessary entries in register No. 19 at serial No. 1124. He sent the case property along with documents for chemical examination to F.S.L. Junga through Constable Jiwa Nand. 9. Statements of PW-3 Bihari Lal and PW-4 Thakur Singh are formal in nature. 10. PW-5 Jiwa Nand has deposed that Anil Kumar, Additional MHC, Police Station Sadar handed over to him one parcel stated to be containing 4 kgs of charas, which was sealed with 16 seals of seal “A” and 6 seals of seal “C” alongwith NCB form in triplicate, specimen seal impressions seal “A” and seal “C”, copy of FIR and copy of recovery memo with a direction to take the same to FSL Junga. He took the same to F.S.L., Junga vide RC No. 116/2010. PW-6 Inspector/SHO Surender Pal has deposed the manner in which the case property was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer. He resealed the property with his seal “C” by affixing 6 seals on it. He obtained the specimen seal impression of seal “C”. He filled in the columns of NCB form. The resealing memo is Ext. PW2/A and one of the NCB form is Ext. PW2/B. He handed over the case property to Head Constable Anil Kumar, Incharge Mallkhana, Police Station, Sadar along with specimen seal impressions of seal “A” and “C” and NCB form. 11. PW-7 Narpat Ram has deposed that on 29.7.2010, police party under the leadership of ASI Ram Lal consisting of Constable Suresh Kumar, constable Dhameshwar and constable Kashmir Singh was present at Bindravani. The police party started from Police Station at about 5.40 P.M. At about 6.15 P.M. a bus bearing registration No.HP-69-1094 came from Kullu towards Mandi side. When the police party was checking the bus, occupants of seat Nos. 23 and 24 started doing strange activities. Police party developed suspicion. The person, who was sitting on seat No.23 was carrying a bag on his lap. Police brought down two persons from the bus. Driver Mohan Singh and Conductor Vinod Kumar were also brought down from the bus. The Investigating Officer requested them to be witnesses. Thereafter, I.O. also associated him as a witness in the presence of driver, conductor and inquired about the name and address of the persons. The police officials gave their personal search to the accused turn by turn. Driver Mohan Singh and Conductor Vinod Kumar were also brought down from the bus. The Investigating Officer requested them to be witnesses. Thereafter, I.O. also associated him as a witness in the presence of driver, conductor and inquired about the name and address of the persons. The police officials gave their personal search to the accused turn by turn. Nothing incriminating was found from the personal search of the I.O. as well as police officials. Thereafter, the bag which the accused Prahalad Singh was carrying was searched. Again stated that rucksack, which the accused Prahalad was carrying was searched by the I.O. When the rucksack was opened, the same was found to be containing a pillow cover. The pillow cover was found to be containing ball and stick shaped substance wrapped in white polythene, which on smelling and experience was found to be cannabis. The contraband was recovered. It was weighed by the I.O. It weighed 4 kgs. The sealing process was completed on the spot. NCB form was also filled in triplicate. The seal was handed over to him by the I.O. Rukka mark ‘A’ was prepared. It was sent to the Police Station through Constable Suresh Kumar. I.O. prepared spot map. The case property was produced before the court while examining PW-7 Narpat Ram. It was brought to the Court by rendering report Ex. PX. In his cross-examination, he has testified that the bus was full to its capacity. I.O. started searching the passengers of the bus. I.O. took about 5-6 minutes to search the passengers sitting from seat Nos.1 to 22. Voluntarily stated that I.O. searched against whom he developed suspicion. No notice was served upon them regarding their search. He did not remember about the number of passengers who were searched by him. Other passengers were not directed to come out. I.O. had not made any efforts to associate any of the driver or the passengers of the vehicles which passed through the place. No efforts were made to summon the witnesses from the Forest Check Post, Bindravani. 12. PW-8 Mohan Singh was the driver of the bus bearing registration No.69-1094. Police directed him to stop the vehicle for checking. The police took two persons out of the bus. Thereafter, police inquired about a bag, which was found lying on the shelf of the bus. No one had claimed the bag. 12. PW-8 Mohan Singh was the driver of the bus bearing registration No.69-1094. Police directed him to stop the vehicle for checking. The police took two persons out of the bus. Thereafter, police inquired about a bag, which was found lying on the shelf of the bus. No one had claimed the bag. Thereafter, they were permitted to take the bus from the spot. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted that the incident has taken place on 29.7.2010. The accused was occupying seat No.23. He has denied the suggestion that the rucksack Ex.P-2 was in the lap of accused. Voluntarily deposed that the same was lying in the shelf of the bus. He did not notice that when the police party entered the bus, accused got perplexed. He has further admitted that pillow cover Ex.P-3 was found from the rucksack Ex.P-2. He has also admitted that pillow cover Ex.P-3 was containing charas Ex.P-4. The contraband was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-7/A. He signed the same. He has denied the suggestion that he got recorded his statement mark-8 that the rucksack Ex.P-2 was in the lap of accused Prahalad. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has admitted that when the police entered the bus, accused as well as 5-6 other persons were also taken out from the bus for inquiry. He has also admitted that accused as well as other persons, who were detained by the police on suspicion, disowned the rucksack Ex.P-2. He has also admitted that both the accused were implicated on the basis of suspicion. 13. PW-9 Suresh Kumar has also deposed the manner in which the accused was nabbed, search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed on the spot on 29.7.2010. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was nabbed at a distance of about 100-150 meters from the forest check post Bindravani. The place where the accused was nabbed, there was a Defence canteen. The police had checked only 2-3 vehicles. He was not in a position to say about the number of passengers sitting in the bus. No notice was served upon the passengers, who were searched by the police. Police took about 10 minutes to search the passengers who were sitting on seat Nos. 1 to 22. The police had checked only 2-3 vehicles. He was not in a position to say about the number of passengers sitting in the bus. No notice was served upon the passengers, who were searched by the police. Police took about 10 minutes to search the passengers who were sitting on seat Nos. 1 to 22. The name and address of the persons, who were sitting on seat Nos. 22 and 25, were not ascertained. 14. PW-10 ASI Ram Lal headed the police party. He had laid Nakka at Bindravani. He has also deposed the manner in which accused was nabbed, search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed. He filled in NCB form. He also prepared rukka. It was sent to the Police Station. He handed over the same to Constable Sursh Kumar. He prepared spot map Ex. PW- 10/B. Statement of Mohan Singh was recorded vide mark ‘8’ now Ex.PW-10/C. According to him, some of the seats of the bus were lying vacant. He started search from front portion of the bus. He only searched the passengers. He did not serve any notice on the passengers. It took 1 ½ minutes to search a passenger. It took about 8-10 minutes to reach seat Nos. 23 and 24. Only the accused were taken out from the bus. 15. The police had laid the Nakka in the evening of 29.7.2010. The bus bearing registration No.HP-69- 1094 was signalled to stop. It was driven by PW-8 Mohan Singh. The police apprehended the accused occupying seat No.23. The prosecution version is that he was carrying rucksack on his lap. PW-8 Mohan Singh was associated as independent witness. According to him, the bag was lying on the shelf of the bus. However, as per official witnesses, the bag was lying on the lap of accused. Thus, there is a major contradiction whether the bag was lying in the lap or shelf of the bus. According to PW-6 Surender Pal, no passengers were taken out from the bus, but according to statement of PW-8 Mohan Singh, 5-6 other passengers were also taken out from the bus for inquiry. 16. The Nakka was laid on the National Highway. The forest check post was at a distance of 100-150 meters. The police has not associated any independent witness. 16. The Nakka was laid on the National Highway. The forest check post was at a distance of 100-150 meters. The police has not associated any independent witness. According to PW-7 Narpat Ram, the I.O. had not made efforts to associate driver or passengers of the vehicles, which were checked by the police. No efforts were made to summon the witnesses from the forest check post Bindravani. PW-7 Narpat Ram has deposed that the bus was full to its capacity. However, PW-10 Ram Lal has deposed that some of the seats in the bus were lying vacant. According to the prosecution story, police started checking the passengers from seat No.1. No notice was served upon the passengers searched by the police sitting in the bus. According to the prosecution, when the police reached seat Nos.23 and 24, persons occupying these seats started behaving differently, which arose suspicion of the police. It is evident from the record the manner in which the accused was apprehended that the police had prior knowledge/information that accused travelling in the bus was carrying contraband. The version of the police that the accused started behaving strangely after seeing them cannot be believed since as per human conduct, his attempt would have been to remain normal, calm and composed. The police had prior information and it was required to comply with the provisions of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by informing the superior officer. The compliance of section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is mandatory. 17. The case property was produced before the Court for the first time when PW-7 Narpat Ram was examined. The same was produced on the basis of Ex. PX. However, Malkhana register has not been produced to prove that the case property was taken out from the Malkahna for its production before the court. It is mandatory to make an entry as and when the case property is taken out from the Malkhana for production before the court and also an entry has to be made when the case property is re-deposited in the Malkhana. According to Ex. PX, case property was handed over by the MHC to be produced before the court through Constable Suresh Kumar. Constable Suresh Kumar has not been examined. According to Ex. PX, case property was handed over by the MHC to be produced before the court through Constable Suresh Kumar. Constable Suresh Kumar has not been examined. In cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the case property is to be kept in a safe custody from the date of seizure till its production before the court. It also creates doubt whether it was the same case property, which was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and produced before the court and in fact, was seized from the accused. 18. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the case for offence under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.6.2013 rendered in Sessions trial No.66 of 2010 is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Fine amount, if already deposited, be refunded to the accused. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 20. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment forthwith.