Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, as such the same were taken up together and are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. These appeals are instituted against Judgment dated 24.3.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge (1), Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 14/2013, whereby appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused’ for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 Lakh and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. On 11.7.2013 at about 10.15 am, police personnel were present at village Charara in connection with patrolling and traffic checking duty. During the traffic checking at about 11.15 am, one black coloured Alto Car having registration No. HP-72-5378 stopped about 100 metres away from the place where the police was checking traffic. The driver of the Car ran away towards the forest side. Police suspected some foul play. They reached towards the car and found that person sitting on the seat adjacent to the driver’s seat was having a bag in between his legs. In the meantime, police stopped one motorcycle which came from Bangana side near the car and they checked the documents of that motorcycle. The motorcyclist disclosed his name as Suram Singh, a forest worker and police associated him in the investigation. Police opened the bag recovered from the vehicle in the presence of Suram Singh and found marble and wick shaped black coloured substance in it. Substance was found to be Charas. It weighed 1.5 kg. Charas was again put in the same bag and wrapped in white cloth. Parcel was taken into possession after sealing with seal impression ‘T’. IO filled up NCB form and prepared sample seals and Rukka. Rukka was sent to the police station through Rattan Chand. IO prepared site plan. Contraband was sent for examination. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. Accused were convicted and sentenced as noticed herein above. Hence, these appeals. IO filled up NCB form and prepared sample seals and Rukka. Rukka was sent to the police station through Rattan Chand. IO prepared site plan. Contraband was sent for examination. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. Accused were convicted and sentenced as noticed herein above. Hence, these appeals. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocates have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 6. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant 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-1 Suram Chand testified that on 11.7.2013, he was going towards Tutru from Bangana on motorcycle. Police stopped him. Police party checked the documents and told him that they have recovered narcotic substance from the accused. Police asked him to become a witness. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He denied that the police stopped him at Charara at 11.20 am. He denied that one Alto car was stopped. He also denied that one person fled away and other accused remained on the seat. He denied the suggestion that police checked the vehicle and found one white coloured bag having inscription of Royal Shoes Co. in between the legs of the accused sitting on the front seat. He also denied the suggestion that police inquired about the antecedents of the person sitting in the front seat of the car. He also denied that when police opened the bag, they found wick shaped Charas from the bag. Police officials physically tested the black coloured substance and thus the same was found to be Charas. He denied that two police officials were sent to Bangana to bring scale. He also denied that Charas weighed 1.5 kg. He also denied the suggestion that Charas was again put in the same bag and thereafter wrapped in a piece of cloth and sealed with 5 seal impressions of ‘T’. He also denied that impression of seal was taken on pieces of cloth and NCB form. He also denied that Charas weighed 1.5 kg. He also denied the suggestion that Charas was again put in the same bag and thereafter wrapped in a piece of cloth and sealed with 5 seal impressions of ‘T’. He also denied that impression of seal was taken on pieces of cloth and NCB form. He also denied that seal was handed over to him. He was also cross-examined by the learned Advocate appearing for the accused. He admitted in his cross-examination that house of one doctor was at a distance of 50-100 metres from Tutru towards Charara side. 9. PW-2 Balbir Singh deposed that he is running a Dhaba at Bangana. Police officials came at about 12 noon on 11.7.2013. He was asked to give one scale. He accompanied the police officials to Charara. At Charara, vehicle of the police was parked. Police told that something was recovered, which was to be weighed. There were about 20-25 people standing on the spot. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that police weighed wick shaped Charas with the traditional scale. He denied that Charas weighed 1.5 kg. 10. PW-3 Rattan Chand testified that the car was stopped at a distance of 100 metres from the place where they were checking vehicles. The vehicle came from Tutru side. In the meantime, one motorcycle came from Bangana side. Documents were checked. In the meantime, driver of the Alto car ran towards forest. They checked black coloured Car in the presence of motorcyclist. One person was sitting on the front seat. A white coloured bag was found in between the legs of the person. They checked the bag. It was found to contain wick shaped black coloured substance. It weighed 1.5 kg. Parcel containing Charas was sealed with 5 seals of ‘T’. IO also filled NCB form in triplicate and put seal impression on NCB form. IO prepared sample seals on pieces of cloth and seal was handed over to Suram Singh. IO prepared rukka, which was handed over to him. He handed over Rukka to MHC who prepared the case file. In his cross-examination, he admitted that distance between Charara and Tutru was 1.5 kms. There were 10-15 shops at Tutru. There were 2-3 shops at Charara. 11. IO prepared rukka, which was handed over to him. He handed over Rukka to MHC who prepared the case file. In his cross-examination, he admitted that distance between Charara and Tutru was 1.5 kms. There were 10-15 shops at Tutru. There were 2-3 shops at Charara. 11. PW-4 Surinder Kumar deposed that at 11.35 pm, IO directed him and Hardeep Singh to bring scale from Bangana side. They went and brought a traditional scale. Charas was weighed. 12. PW-5 Amit Kumar deposed that on 13.7.2013, MHC of PS Bangana handed over one parcel stated to be containing Charas sealed with five seals of seal impression ‘T’ alongwith sample seals, NCB form, docket and RC No. 81/2013 with the direction to take them to FSL Junga. Parcel was handed over to him at 7.15 am. He stayed at Shimla on 13.7.2013 and reached FSL Junga on 14.7.2013. He could not deposit the same with FSL Junga due to holiday on 14.7.2013. On 15.7.2013, he deposited with FSL Junga, the parcel and other documents at 10.00 am and obtained receipt on the RC. 13. PW-6 Narinder Singh deposed that he has brought back the case property from FSL Junga and handed to MHC. 14. PW-7 Pawan Kumar deposed that he prepared the case file and handed the same to Rattan Chand. On the same day, at 5.15 pm, ASI Mehar Deen handed over case property i.e. one parcel allegedly containing 1.5 kg Charas, sealed with 5 seals of ‘T’ and , sample seal, NCB form in triplicate and Alto car alongwith keys. He deposited articles recovered from Rakesh Kumar during his personal search. He deposited the articles in Malkhana after incorporating entry vide Sr. No. 371. Extract of register of Malkhana is Ext. PW-7/C. On 13.7.2013, he handed over case property to Amit Kumar vide RC No. 81/13 with the direction to deposit the same with FSL Junga vide RC Ext. PW-7/D. On 29.7.2013, he deputed Narinder Singh to bring back the case property. 15. PW-8 Kuldeep Kumar, PW-9 Sandeepan Sharma, PW-10 Roshan lal, PW-11 Manoj Kumar, PW-12 Rohit Kumar, PW-13 ASI Yog Raj, PW-14 Harnam Singh, PW-15 Harsh Vardhan and PW-16 Sanjay Kumar are formal witnesses, who have deposed the manner in which one of the accused Narinder Singh proceeded on leave, agreement of Car Ext. 15. PW-8 Kuldeep Kumar, PW-9 Sandeepan Sharma, PW-10 Roshan lal, PW-11 Manoj Kumar, PW-12 Rohit Kumar, PW-13 ASI Yog Raj, PW-14 Harnam Singh, PW-15 Harsh Vardhan and PW-16 Sanjay Kumar are formal witnesses, who have deposed the manner in which one of the accused Narinder Singh proceeded on leave, agreement of Car Ext. PW- 9/C, handing over of SIM card to Narinder Singh, details of CDR of No. 97361-81522 and 98055-00359 and selling Alto car to Rakesh Kumar by PW-18 Harsh Vardhan. 16. PW-17 Baldev Singh deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended, search, seizure and sealing process was completed at the spot. He completed all the codal formalities on the spot including preparation of Rukka and filling up of NCB form. 17. PW-18 Mehar Deen also deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended, all the codal formalities were completed at the spot. he prepared special report. He deposited the case property alongwith documents with MHC Pawan Kumar as per report Ext. PW-12/B. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were shops at village Charara. They were about 200 metres away towards Tutru side from village Charara. 18. PW-19 Ram Dass deposed that the accused Narinder Singh surrendered before JMIC II Una on 22.7.2013. He was formally arrested vide Ext. PW-19/A. 19. Case of the prosecution has not been supported by independent witnesses PW-1 Suram Chand and PW-2 Balbir Singh. PW-1 Suram Chand in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor has denied the suggestion that police checked the vehicle and found one white coloured bag having inscription of Royal Shoes company. He also denied the suggestion that the Charas weighed 1.5 kg. He also denied that NCB form was filled at the spot. Though he has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo but according to him, his signatures were obtained at 8.30 pm in the evening at Bangana. He also denied the suggestion that black coloured car was taken into possession by the police in his presence. PW-2 Balbir Singh has denied that Charas weighed 1.5 kg. He also denied that Charas was put in the bag. He also denied that seal was handed over to him. 20. It has come in the statement of PW-1 Suram Chand that house of doctor was at a distance of 50-100 metres from Tutru towards Charara side. PW-2 Balbir Singh has denied that Charas weighed 1.5 kg. He also denied that Charas was put in the bag. He also denied that seal was handed over to him. 20. It has come in the statement of PW-1 Suram Chand that house of doctor was at a distance of 50-100 metres from Tutru towards Charara side. PW-3 Rattan Chand admitted that there were about 10-15 shops at village Tutru. There were about 2-3 shops at village Charara. PW-18 Mehar Deen has also admitted in the cross-examination that there were about 2-3 shops at village Charara. Police has not joined any independent witness. There were shops at village Tutru and also at Village Charara. It is not one of those cases where accused was apprehended from secluded/ isolated place. It was morning time and police could easily join independent witness. PW-7 Pawan Kumar deposed that ASI Mehar Deen handed over case property i.e. one parcel allegedly containing 1.5 kg Charas sealed with seal impression ‘T’, sample of seal, NCB form and also Car. He handed over case property to PW-5 Constable Amit Kumar with the direction to deposit the same with FSL Junga vide RC Ext. PW-7/D. PW-5 Constable Amit Kumar deposed that parcel was handed by Pawan Kumar at 7.15 am. He stayed at Shimla on 13.7.2013 and reached Junga on 14.7.2013. He could not deposit parcel at FSL Junga due to holiday. On 15.7.2013, he deposited parcel and other documents with the official at FSL Junga. PW-5 was handed over case property to be taken to FSL at 7.15 am on 13.7.2013. He has to travel only from PS Bangana District Una. He could easily reach FSL Junga by the evening, if not during day-time. He reached Junga on 14.7.2013. He could not deposit parcel at FSL Junga due to holiday (Sunday). He deposited the same on 15.7.2013, as per his statement. He could deposit the case property in any of the Malkhanas at Shimla after obtaining proper DDR. PW-7 Pawan Kumar deposed that he has deputed Narinder Singh to bring case property. Narinder Singh handed over case property on 22.7.2013. Case property was produced in the Court during the recording of statement of PW-17 ASI Baldev Singh. Who has produced the case property before the Court has not come while recording the statement of PW-17. PW-7 Pawan Kumar deposed that he has deputed Narinder Singh to bring case property. Narinder Singh handed over case property on 22.7.2013. Case property was produced in the Court during the recording of statement of PW-17 ASI Baldev Singh. Who has produced the case property before the Court has not come while recording the statement of PW-17. It was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the case property has come from the Malkhana to be produced before the Court after making proper entry in the prescribed Malkhana register. Entry was also to be made that the case property was to be deposited after being produced in the Court, in the Malkhana register. Malkhana register is Ext. PW-7/C. There is no such entry made in the Malkhana register. Thus it casts doubt whether it was the same case property which was seized from the accused and produced before the Court or it was some other case property. Case property in narcotic cases is to be kept in safe custody from the date of its seizure till production in the Court. case property in the present case has remained in the custody of PW-5 Amit Kumar from 13.7.2013 till 15.7.2013 without being deposited in any of the Malkhana of police station at Shimla. PW-18 Mehar Deen has produced the case property with Pawan Kumar as per Rapat Ext. PW-12/B. Case property was required to be produced before SHO for resealing. Column No. 9, 10 and 11 are required to be filled by SHO. There is no signature of the SHO on NCB form. He was required to reseal and put separate seal on the Pullinda/Packet. It is not the case of the prosecution that the SHO was not present in the police station. According to Section 55 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, officer incharge of the police station is required to take charge of and keep in safe custody pending the orders of the Magistrate, all the articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station, which may be delivered to him and to allow any officer, who may accompany said articles to the police station or who may be deputed with such articles or to take the samples of and from them and all samples so taken are to be sealed with a seal of the officer incharge of the police station. 21. Section 55 of the Act may not as such be mandatory but its provisions are required to be complied with in its letter and spirit. SHO is required to reseal the case property. 22. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2001) 3 SCC 28 , have held while appreciating the provisions of Section 52, 55 and 57 of the Act that though the provisions of Section 52 and 57 are directory and violation would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. However, investigating officer can not totally ignore these provisions because such failure would have a bearing on appreciation of the evidence regarding arrest of the case. Their lordships have held as under: 9. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that from the evidence it is apparent that the I.O. has not followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 52, 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. May be that the I.O. had no knowledge about the operation of the N.D.P.S. Act on the date of the incident as he recorded the FIR under Section 9 of the Opium Act. In our view, there is much substance in this submission. It is true that provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directory. Violation of these provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. However, I.O. cannot totally ignore these provisions and such failure will have a bearing on appreciation of evidence regarding arrest of the accused or seizure of the article. In the present case, I.O. has admitted that the seal which was affixed on the muddamal article was handed over to the witness PW-1 and was kept with him for 10 days. He has also admitted that the muddamal parcels were not sealed by the Officer-in-charge of the police station as required under Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The prosecution has not led any evidence whether the Chemical Analyser received the sample with proper intact seals. It creates a doubt whether the same sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser. Further, it is apparent that the I.O. has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act of making full report of all particulars of arrest and seizure to his immediate superior officer. It creates a doubt whether the same sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser. Further, it is apparent that the I.O. has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act of making full report of all particulars of arrest and seizure to his immediate superior officer. The conduct of panch witness is unusual as he offered himself to be a witness for search and seizure despite being not asked by the I.O. particularly when he did not know that the substance was poppy husk, but came to know about it only after being informed by the police. Further, it is the say of the Panch witness that Muddamal seal used by the PSI was wooden seal. As against this, it is the say of PW-2 SI/IO that it was a brass seal. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and faulty investigation by the prosecution, in our view, it would not be safe to convict the appellant for a serious offence of possessing poppyhusk. 23. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 559 , have held that in prosecution relating to cases under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, question is as to how and where samples were taken and where samples had been stored or as to when they had despatched or received in laboratory is a matter of great importance on account of huge penalty involved in these matters. Their lordships have held as under: “5 We find, however, that the second aspect on which the High Court has opined calls for no interference. As per the prosecution story the samples had been removed from the Malkhana on the 26th of February, 1998, and should have been received in the laboratory the very next day. The High Court has, accordingly observed that the prosecution had not been able to show as to in whose possession the samples had remained from 26th February, 1998 to 9th March, 1998. The High Court has also disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W.9, the former being the Malkhana incharge and the latter being the Constable, who had taken the samples to the Laboratory to the effect that the samples had been taken out on the 9th of March, 1998 and not on the 26th February, 1998. The High Court has also disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W.9, the former being the Malkhana incharge and the latter being the Constable, who had taken the samples to the Laboratory to the effect that the samples had been taken out on the 9th of March, 1998 and not on the 26th February, 1998. The Court has also found that in the absence of any reliable evidence with regard to the authenticity of the letter dated 26th February, 1998 it had to be found that the samples had remained in some unknown custody from the 26th February, 1998 to 9th March, 1998. 6. We must emphasise that in a prosecution relating to the Act the question as to how and where the samples had been stored or as to when they had despatched or received in the laboratory is a matter of great importance on account of the huge penalty involved in these matters. The High Court was, therefore, in our view, fully justified in holding that the sanctity of the samples had been compromised which cast a doubt on the prosecution story. We, accordingly, feel that the judgment of the High Court on the second aspect calls for no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The Respondent is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.” 24. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. Judgment dated 24.3.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge (1), Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 14/2013, is set aside. Accused are acquitted of the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused are ordered to be released forthwith, if not wanted by the police in any other case. Fine amount, if any deposited by the accused, be also refunded to them. Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants of the accused and send the same to the concerned Superintendent of Jail immediately.