Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 09.09.2014, rendered by the learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 27-ST/7 of 2013, whereby the appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as “accused”, namely Dinesh Kumar and Parveen Kumar), who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that PW-9 SI Ankush Dogra alongwith PW-5 Constable Raj Kumar, ASI Sunita Devi, HC Jagir Singh and Constable Anil Kumar had gone for patrolling in an official vehicle. Police party was present at Sanora Petrol Pump, near Giripul at about 05:30 p.m. They were checking a Nano Car bearing Regn. No. HP-16-3907 owned and possessed by PW-10 Satish Kumar. In the meantime, the accused persons came on the spot in a Hyundai Getz Car bearing No. HP-01-S-0747 and were signalled to stop. The accused Dinesh was driving the vehicle and accused Parveen was sitting on front seat. Accused Parveen was carrying a bag under his legs. The bag was checked by the police party in the presence of independent witnesses. It contained charas in the shape of sticks in a plastic bag. The charas weighed 420 grams. The bag and charas were kept in two separate cloth parcels Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-4 and sealed with six seals separately. NCB forms, in triplicate, were prepared and seal impression Ex. PW-5/A was drawn and seal after its use was handed over to PW-10 Satish Kumar. The charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B alongwith vehicle and its documents. Rukka Ex. PW2/A was prepared and sent through PW-4 Constable Raj Kumar to the Police Station Rajgarh, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PW2/B was registered. Case property was deposited with PW-3 HC Purshotam Singh. He entered the case property in the malkhana register vide entry Ex. PW3/A. The case property was sent to SFSL, Junga. The special report Ex. PW1/A was prepared. The investigation was completed and after completing all the codal formalities, the challan was put up in the Court. 3. PW2/B was registered. Case property was deposited with PW-3 HC Purshotam Singh. He entered the case property in the malkhana register vide entry Ex. PW3/A. The case property was sent to SFSL, Junga. The special report Ex. PW1/A was prepared. The investigation was completed and after completing all the codal formalities, the challan was put up in the Court. 3. The prosecution had examined as many as 10 witnesses to support its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants/accused. 5. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment and order, dated 09.09.2014. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and records, carefully. 7. PW-1 Constable Vicky Kumar and PW-2 ASI Chet Ram are formal witnesses. PW-3 HC Purshotam Singh deposed that on 22.12.2012 at 11:15 p.m., SI Ankush Dogra deposited one sealed parcel sealed with seal bearing impression ‘T’ alongwith sample seal containing bag and one sealed parcel also sealed with seal impression ‘T’ containing charas alongwith NCB form in triplicate and one Car No. HP-01-S-0747 in the malkhana, regarding which he incorporated entries at Sr. No. 409 in the malkhana register. The extract of malkhana register is Ex. PW3/A. On 24.12.2012, he sent the parcel containing charas alongwith NCB form and sample of seal to SFSL, Junga through Constable Suresh Kumar vide RC No. 86/12. 8. PW-4 Constable Suresh Kumar deposed that on 24.12.2012, MHC Purshotam had handed over the case property of the case comprising of one sealed parcel sealed with seal bearing impression ‘T’ alongwith NCB form and sample of seal vide RC No. 86/12. He delivered the same at SFSL Junga. 9. PW-5 Constable Raj Kumar testified that Police party was present at Giripul near Petrol Pump. At about 5:30 p.m., when a Nano car was checked, in the meantime, one Car bearing No. HP-01S-0747 came from Sanora side which was signalled to stop. Two persons were sitting in that Car. Two persons, namely, Satish and Bhupinder Pal, who were present there, were also associated. At about 5:30 p.m., when a Nano car was checked, in the meantime, one Car bearing No. HP-01S-0747 came from Sanora side which was signalled to stop. Two persons were sitting in that Car. Two persons, namely, Satish and Bhupinder Pal, who were present there, were also associated. The vehicle was checked by SI Ankush Dogra in the presence of witnesses. A bag was recovered from beneath the legs of the person who was sitting by the side of the driver of the car. It contained charas. It weighed charas 420 grams. Photography of the proceedings was also done on the spot. The recovered charas was put into cloth parcel and sealed with seal having impression ‘T’. The recovered bag was also sealed in cloth parcel separately and sealed with the same seal. NCB form was filled up in triplicate. The recovered charas and the bag were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/B. The rukka Ex. PW2/A was scribed by the Investigating Officer. It was handed over to him. He delivered the same at Police Station Rajgarh. One sealed parcel having seals of FSL and ‘T’ was produced. These were opened in the Court. The parcel contained Ex. P2, polythene bag and charas Ex. P3 which were sealed on the spot. Another sealed parcel having seals ‘T’ was produced. It was also opened in the Court. It contained parcel cover Ex. P4 and bag Ex. P5. These were the same which were sealed on the spot as per the statement of PW-5. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the personal search of the accused person was conducted. However, the accused persons were not apprised of their right of personal search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 10. PW-6 Sh. Bhupender Pal deposed that during the month of December, 2012, he was going to Giripul for private job with Satish Kumar in his Nano Car. They were sitting in a hotel near Petrol Pump for taking tea. No vehicle came there in his presence nor any vehicle was checked in their presence. Nothing was recovered in his presence from anyone. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that the bag was recovered from the person who was sitting in the front seat. No vehicle came there in his presence nor any vehicle was checked in their presence. Nothing was recovered in his presence from anyone. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that the bag was recovered from the person who was sitting in the front seat. He also denied that the bag was checked in his presence and one polythene envelope containing charas in the shape of small sticks and small balls was recovered. He denied that the police requisitioned weighing machine from Police Station Rajgarh. He also denied that charas weighed 420 grams. He also denied the manner in which the charas was sealed, though he has admitted his signatures on Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/A. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, he testified that they were having tea at the hotel (Dhaba) of Pardeep near Petrol Pump. The police told them that they had found some packet containing contraband from Dhaba premises and therefore, they were made to sign some documents. 11. PW-7 Constable Ajay Kumar deposed that on 22.12.2012 at about 5:30 p.m., MHC Police Station Rajgarh handed over to him electronics weighing machine which he brought to Giripul and handed over to SI Ankush Dogra at about 6:30 p.m. The recovered charas weighed on the spot and found to be 420 grams. Other formalities of search and seizure were completed on the spot. In his cross-examination, he could not mention how many officials were in the Police party. He did not know the names of the persons who were present on the spot. 12. PW-8 Constable Manoj Kumar is a formal witness. PW-9 SI Ankush Dogra deposed the manner in which the accused was apprehended, search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed on the spot. He filled up the NCB form and sample seal Ex. PW5/A was drawn. The case property was taken into consideration. He prepared the rukka and spot map. 13. PW-10 Satish Kumar deposed that he was owner of Nano Car bearing registration No. HP-16-3907. One boy was also travelling in his vehicle. At about 6:00 p.m., he reached near Patrol Pump at Giripul. Police stopped his vehicle. Police checked documents of his vehicle. According to him, no vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01-S-0747 came on the spot. 13. PW-10 Satish Kumar deposed that he was owner of Nano Car bearing registration No. HP-16-3907. One boy was also travelling in his vehicle. At about 6:00 p.m., he reached near Patrol Pump at Giripul. Police stopped his vehicle. Police checked documents of his vehicle. According to him, no vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01-S-0747 came on the spot. Neither the same was checked nor any contraband was recovered in his presence. He was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were occupying the vehicle and the person sitting on front seat had kept a red colour bag on his legs. He denied the suggestion that the bag contained charas. He also denied that weighing scale was summoned from Police Station on telephone. He denied that at about 6:30 p.m., Constable Ajay Kumar brought electronic scale and the charas weighed and found to be 420 grams. He further denied that the proceedings were photographed in his presence. He also denied the suggestion qua the manner in which case property was sealed. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, he testified that he was running a Dhaba at Giripul and no proceedings were conducted on the spot. 14. The case of the prosecution has not been supported by the independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Bhupender Pal (PW-6) and Satish Kumar (PW-10). According to them, nothing was recovered in their presence from any person. Both of them were declared hostile. They had denied all the suggestions made to them, the manner in which the accused were apprehended, search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed on the spot. 15. PW-6 Sh. Bhupender Pal in his cross-examination by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused had deposed that he was told by the Police that they had found some packet containing contraband from the Dhaba premises and they were made to sign some documents. PW-6 though had admitted his signatures on Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B, but had categorically stated that nothing had been recovered from anyone in his presence. PW-10 Satish Kumar had also admitted his signatures on Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B, but had specifically deposed that neither the vehicle was checked nor any contraband was recovered in his presence. 16. PW-6 though had admitted his signatures on Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B, but had categorically stated that nothing had been recovered from anyone in his presence. PW-10 Satish Kumar had also admitted his signatures on Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B, but had specifically deposed that neither the vehicle was checked nor any contraband was recovered in his presence. 16. PW-5 Constable Raj Kumar deposed specifically that the personal search of the accused persons was conducted, however, the accused persons were not apprised of their right of personal search under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Case property, as discussed hereinabove, was produced in the Court. However, when the statement of PW-5 Constable Raj Kumar was recorded, it has not come in his statement that who had produced the case property in the Court. The extract of the malkhana register is Ex. PW3/A. An entry is required to be made in the malkhana register when the case property is taken out and when the same is re-deposited after production in the Court. No DDR has been produced to the effect that who has produced the case property in the Court. The case property under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is kept under safe custody from its seizure till its production in the Court. Thus, it casts doubt whether it is the same case property which was seized from the accused and has been produced in the Court or it was a case property of some other case. An entry has been made on Ex. PW3/A when the case property was deposited at the initial stage and when the report had come from the SFSL, Junga, but no entry has been made in the malkhana register when the case property was produced in the Court. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order, dated 09.09.2014, are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants and send the same to the concerned Superintendent of Jail.