JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The instant appeals are instituted against Judgment dated 28.4.2012 rendered by learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Sirmaur at Nahan, HP in Sessions Trial No. 4- N/7 of 2011, whereby Rishi Pal (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 179/2012 and respondent in Cr. Appeal No. 378/2012) (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for commission of offence under Section 15 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 four years, and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment, for one year, for being in conscious possession of 7.5 kg of Poppy husk. Accused has preferred Cr. Appeal No. 179/2012 against his conviction as mentioned above. State has preferred Cr. Appeal No. 378/2012 seeking conviction of the accused for being in conscious possession of 200 kg poppy husk. 2. Since both the appeals arise from one judgment and common questions of law and facts are involved in the same, these were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. 3. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 6.3.2011, Bhisham Singh Thakur, Inspector/ SHO Police Station, Paonta Sahib alongwith SI Dharam Pal and other police officials at about 4.30 PM was present near Bata Pul in Government vehicle bearing No. HP-17B-1222 in connection with routine patrol and traffic checking. A secret information was received that the accused in his residential house and rented shop/store at village Patlion, had kept poppy husk in his possession for sale to the people. The information was reduced into writing as per terms of Section 42 (2) of the Act and was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan through HHC Maan Singh. Independent witnesses namely Pritpal Singh and Parmeshwar Dass were associated and rushed to the house of the accused and one party consisting of PSI Naresh Kumar was deputed to take guard of rented store, which was at a distance from the house of accused. Independent witnesses namely Pritpal Singh and Parmeshwar Dass were associated and rushed to the house of the accused and one party consisting of PSI Naresh Kumar was deputed to take guard of rented store, which was at a distance from the house of accused. Accused was present in his residential house and the search was carried out after his written consent and from the prayer room (Pooja room), on the left side of Godrej Almirah one plastic bag containing poppy husk in grinded shape was recovered. It weighed 2.200 kg. Second bag on which ‘special chakki atta’ was printed, was found containing 5.300 kg poppy straw/husk. Both the bags were sealed with seal ‘X’ on the spot and NCB form in triplicate was filled in and taken into possession vide seizure memo prepared on the spot. During the search of the house of accused, in Godrej Almirah, two bags of cloth were found and in one bag, Rs.1,31,750/- and in the second bag, Rs.1,60,000/- total Rs.2,91,750/- were recovered. Accused could not account for and it was presumed that said money was illegally acquired by selling of poppy husk. Same was sealed in a parcel and sealed with ‘X’ impression. Thereafter, police party rushed to the rented store of accused alongwith witnesses and accused was asked to produce the key but he could not produce it and lock of the store was broken and on search of the store, 10 bags i.e. 5 yellow and 5 white in colour on which ‘Petpre Form Shree’ was printed were found and on checking poppy husk was found in the same. It weighed 200 kg. Two samples of 1 kg each from all the bags were taken separately and 20 samples and 10 bags were sealed with seal impression ‘X’ and taken into possession vide seizure memo prepared on the spot. NCB form in triplicate was also filled up. Accused could not produce licence for the possession of poppy husk weighing 207.5 kg and thereafter written report for registration of case was sent to Police Station Paonta Sahib, on the basis of which case was registered. Case property was deposited with MHC Police Station Paonta Sahib. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Case property was deposited with MHC Police Station Paonta Sahib. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. Accused was convicted for conscious possession of 7.5 kg poppy husk as noticed herein above but was acquitted for possession of 200 kg poppy husk. Hence, these two appeals i.e. one by the accused and the other by the State. 5. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove case against the accused. 6. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved case against accused. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record carefully. 8. PW-1 Pritpal Singh testified that accused was resident of his Panchayat. He was called by SHO Police Station Paonta Sahib. His signatures were obtained by Bhisham Singh Thakur Inspector, SHO on certain papers. SHO apprised him that accused was involved in some criminal offence. Poppy husk was recovered. He was not associated by the police on 6.3.2011 nor house of accused situate at village Patlion was searched in his presence. No poppy husk was recovered in his presence. He denied that currency notes in different denominations from Godrej Almirah totaling Rs.2,91,750/- were recovered. Even police has not searched the store/shop of which accused was tenant. No poppy husk from the rented accommodation was recovered from the possession of the accused. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied in cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that in their presence, Addl. SHO Dharam Pal, SI, Police Station Paonta Sahib had conducted search of the house of accused at village Patlion. He also denied that during the course of search from prayer room of accused by the side of Godrej Almirah, one plastic bag was recovered and he further denied on checking the same, poppy husk weighing 2.200 kg was recovered. He further denied that the second bag was recovered containing 5.300 kg poppy husk. He also denied that sealing proceedings were completed at the spot. He has admitted his signatures on Ext. P1 and P2. Volunteered that his signatures were obtained in Police Station, Paonta Sahib. He further denied that the second bag was recovered containing 5.300 kg poppy husk. He also denied that sealing proceedings were completed at the spot. He has admitted his signatures on Ext. P1 and P2. Volunteered that his signatures were obtained in Police Station, Paonta Sahib. He signed the documents without going through the contents though he admitted that he appended his signatures after pondering over the matter. He also denied that on 6.3.2011, police searched store/shop of the accused which was on left side of Nahan-Paonta road. He denied that the police demanded keys of the shop. He denied that the lock was broken by the police and they recovered 10 bags containing poppy husk. He denied that NCB form in triplicate was filled and seal after use was handed over to him. He denied that the bags of sample were taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/B. However, he identified his signatures on Ext. PW-1/B. In his crossexamination by the learned defence counsel, he admitted that in the half of the building, there is Gurukul School and in the rest half, accused resides with his family. 9. PW-2 Parmeshwar Dass deposed that he occasionally purchases grocery from the shop of accused. He was called by the SHO Police Station. A Sub Inspector obtained his signatures on certain papers. Police apprised him of some objectionable articles having been recovered from accused. He was not associated by the police on 6.3.2011 nor the house of accused situate at village Patlion was searched in his presence. No poppy husk was recovered in his presence from the house or store of accused. No currency notes were recovered in his presence. Police has not taken search of store/shop of accused in which he was a tenant. No poppy husk was recovered from the rented house of accused. He was declared hostile and crossexamined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied that in their presence ASHO Dharam Pal has conducted search of the house of accused in village Patlion. He denied that during the course of search from prayer room of accused, by the side of Godrej Almirah one plastic bag containing 2.200 kg poppy husk was recovered. He denied that second bag was also recovered containing 5.300 kg poppy husk. He denied that during the course of search from prayer room of accused, by the side of Godrej Almirah one plastic bag containing 2.200 kg poppy husk was recovered. He denied that second bag was also recovered containing 5.300 kg poppy husk. He denied that both the bags were sealed with seal impression ‘X’ on the spot and NCB form in triplicate was completed. He also denied that sample of seal impression ‘X’ was taken separately. He admitted his signatures on Ext. P1 and P2. Volunteered that his signatures were obtained at Police Station Paonta Sahib on 7.3.2011. He also admitted his signatures on recovery memo Ext. PW-1/A. Volunteered that his signatures on Ext. PW-1/A were taken in the Police Station. He also denied that police on 6.3.2011 conducted search of store/shop of accused which was on left side of Nahan-Paonta road. He denied that police demanded keys from accused and he failed to produce it. He denied that police broke the lock and on search, 10 bags containing poppy husk weighing 200 kg were found. He denied that sampling and sealing proceedings were completed at the spot. He denied that NCB form in triplicate was filled in and seal after use was handed over to Pritpal. He identified his signatures on Ext. PW- 1/B. He also admitted his signatures on Exts. P3 to P12. Volunteered that his signatures were obtained on 7.3.2011 in Police Station. He further denied that during the course of search of house of accused, currency notes of different denominations were recovered i.e. Rs.1,60,000- from one bag and Rs.1,31,750/- from other bag, total Rs.2,91,750/-. He denied that recovery memo to this effect Ext. PW-1/C was prepared. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he admitted that in the building, Gurukul School was being run at the relevant time. School was housed in a portion of the house and accused was residing with his family. House of father of accused was at a distance of 200 metres from the house of accused. There were many houses just close to the house of father of accused. 10. PW-3 Kirat Singh testified that in March 2011, he had let out shop to accused on monthly rent of Rs.1200/- Accused used to pay the rent in advance. Accused remained in the shop for 1-1/2 months. No agreement of tenancy was scribed. He was associated by the police during investigation. 10. PW-3 Kirat Singh testified that in March 2011, he had let out shop to accused on monthly rent of Rs.1200/- Accused used to pay the rent in advance. Accused remained in the shop for 1-1/2 months. No agreement of tenancy was scribed. He was associated by the police during investigation. Certificate Ext. PW-3/A was given by him to the police. He was called by the police on 6.3.2011. In the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he testified that he has not entered into any written agreement with accused which shows that shop was rented. Shop was owned by his son Jiwan Singh. He has not produced any revenue record to the police showing ownership of the shop. His signatures on Ext. PW-3/A were obtained in the Police Station. He admitted that police was planning to arrest him in the case as the shop was in his possession. 11. PW-4 Dugal Singh deposed that in his presence, police weighed some bags. Ext. PW-4/A was scribed by him. 12. PW-6 Constable Ayub Khan, deposed that on 8.3.2011, Incharge Malkhana Police Station Paonta Sahib handed over to him, two bags sealed with seal impression ‘X’ allegedly containing poppy husk and 10 parcels allegedly containing samples of poppy husk pertaining to the case vide RC No. 222/11 dated 8.3.2011. He handed over the same to FSL Junga. 13. PW-7 Constable Kamal Khan testified that he was present with Inspector Bhisham Singh Thakur SI, ASI Parkash Chand, ASI Kedar Singh etc. near Bata Pul in connection with detection of excise cases and traffic checking. SHO Bhisham Thakur received a secret information that accused Rishi dealt with sale and purchase of poppy husk. SHO Bhisham Singh Thakur prepared information under Section 42 (2) of the Act and sent the same the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan through HHC Maan Singh. Thereafter two persons namely Pritpal Singh and Parmeshwar Singh were called and raiding party was formed. Thereafter, they alongwith two independent witnesses proceeded to the house of accused. PSI Naresh Sharma and HC Dharam Singh went to the store of accused which was taken on rent. Accused was found at his residence. They gave their personal search to the accused and thereafter house of accused was searched. During the search, in prayer room, two bags were found placed near Godrej Almirah. Bags were checked and poppy husk was found. Accused was found at his residence. They gave their personal search to the accused and thereafter house of accused was searched. During the search, in prayer room, two bags were found placed near Godrej Almirah. Bags were checked and poppy husk was found. Search, sealing and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot. Currency notes were also recovered. Shop of accused was found locked. Accused was asked to give keys of lock. He refused. Lock was broken and search was conducted. 10 plastic bags were recovered from the shop, and 200 kgs of poppy husk was found in the bags. In his cross-examination, he admitted that father of accused was present in his house. He did not know about the presence of mother of accused. He admitted that brothers of accused had separate houses and parents have separate house. They have common courtyard. He has seen Gurukul School. He admitted that Gurukul school was housed in the building owned by the accused. Almirah from which currency notes were recovered was open. Volunteered that it was locked. 14. PW-8 ASI Paramjeet Singh deposed that information under Section 42 (2) of the Act was received by Punita Bhardwaj, Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan at her residence through HHC Maan Singh. 15. PW-9 Constable Dharam Singh deposed that he was posted as Assistant of Malkhana incharge at Police Station, Paonta Sahib. He has brought Malkhana Register No. 19. On 6.3.2011, Bhisham Singh Thakur, SHO Police Station, Paonta Sahib had deposited at 10.15 PM 10 bags of poppy husk sealed with seal impression ‘X’ at three places each as well as 20 parcels of sample sealed with seal impression ‘X’. Besides this, two other sealed bags containing poppy husk 2.200 kg and 5.300 kg were also deposited. He made entry of the aforesaid items and documents in Register No. 19. Case property was sent to the FSL Junga. 16. PW-10 Constable Dharam Singh No. 519, Police Station Paonta Sahib, testified that Inspector SHO Bhisham Singh Thakur deputed him and PSI Naresh Sharma to protect the rented shop/store of the accused, which was situated at a distance of about ½ kms, from the house of the accused. The shop/store was locked and accused was asked to produce the key of lock, he did not give the key. Lock of store was broken and search was conducted. Contraband was recovered. It weighed 200 kg. The shop/store was locked and accused was asked to produce the key of lock, he did not give the key. Lock of store was broken and search was conducted. Contraband was recovered. It weighed 200 kg. Search, sealing and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that no recovery memo was prepared at the store. Volunteered that the recovery memo was prepared at the flour mill. 17. PW-11 ASI Parkash Chand deposed that accused was found present when they reached his house. PSI Naresh Sharma and Dharam Singh were sent to guard the store. Every member of the raiding party gave their search to the accused vide memo Ext. PW-11/A. Accused was asked to give the search of his residential house before any gazetted officer or Magistrate. He consented to give search to the police present on the spot. Memo Ext. PW-11/B was prepared to this effect. Search of the prayer room of accused was conducted by the raiding party in the presence of accused. Two plastic bags white in colour were found placed near Godrej Almirah. Bags were checked. Poppy husk was found in the same. It weighed 2.200 kg and 5.300 kg. Thereafter they proceeded to the place where rented store/shop was situate. Landlord of the store was present. Accused was asked to give the key of the lock of store room. He refused to give the keys. Lock was broken. Search was conducted. Ten plastic bags were found. On opening the same, poppy husk was found in the bags. It weighed 200 kg. Bags were taken into possession vide Ext. PW-1/B after drawing two samples of one kg from each bag. Search, seizure and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot. 18. PW-12 SI Dharam Pal, deposed that Inspector Bhisham Singh Thakur prepared information under Section 42 (2) of the Act. It was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur at Nahan through HHC Maan Singh. Two independent witnesses were associated. PSI Naresh Sharma and HC Dharam Singh were sent to guard the store of the accused. Accused was asked to give search of his residential house by any gazetted officer or magistrate. Contraband was recovered from the house. Similarly, cash amounting to Rs.2,91,750/- was recovered and taken into possession. Store was searched. 200 kg poppy husk was recovered. PSI Naresh Sharma and HC Dharam Singh were sent to guard the store of the accused. Accused was asked to give search of his residential house by any gazetted officer or magistrate. Contraband was recovered from the house. Similarly, cash amounting to Rs.2,91,750/- was recovered and taken into possession. Store was searched. 200 kg poppy husk was recovered. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there was one house, however brothers of accused resided in separate portion. It contains 7 rooms and has only ground floor and a common courtyard. 19. PW-15 Bhisham Singh Thakur testified that he had prepared information under Section 42 (2) of the Act and handed over the same to HHC Man Singh for giving the same to Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur. Report is Ext. PW-8/A. House of accused was searched and contraband was recovered. Store was also searched. Contraband was recovered. Landlord of store was Kirat Singh. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not associated any person residing in the front houses or by the side of the house searched by them. Volunteered that he associated Pradhan and Up Pradhan. House contained four room. They searched all the four rooms. He has also found ration card in the Almirah but he has not taken the same into possession. During entire search of the house, no document or article was found which could show that accused was residing in the house. He has not obtained the revenue record of the house from the Patwari to establish as to whom the house belonged nor he collected any record regarding the ownership and possession of the house including from Panchayat. Currency notes recovered from the house belonged to father of the accused, who was owner in possession of the house. Store was not having anything except 10 bags of poppy husk. He has not further investigated about the ownership of the store except that he took certificate Ext. PW-3/A in this regard. 20. Case of the prosecution has not been supported by independent witnesses PW-1 Pritpal Singh and PW-2 Parmeshwar Dass. According to PW-1, Pritpal Singh, he was neither associated by the Police on 6.3.2011 nor the house of the accused situate at village Patlion was searched in his presence. No poppy husk was recovered in their presence from the house of the accused. According to PW-1, Pritpal Singh, he was neither associated by the Police on 6.3.2011 nor the house of the accused situate at village Patlion was searched in his presence. No poppy husk was recovered in their presence from the house of the accused. He denied that the currency notes in different denominations were recovered in his presence. Police has not conducted search of the rented store/shop, in which accused was a tenant. He further denied that any poppy husk was recovered from the rented accommodation. Similarly, PW- 2, Parmeshwar Dass, deposed that he was called by SHO to Police Station Paonta Sahib and was apprised that some objectionable articles were recovered from the house. He was not associated on 6.3.2011 nor house of accused at village Patlion was searched in his presence. No poppy husk was recovered from the house. No currency notes were recovered in his presence. Police had not taken search of the store/shop of accused in which he was tenant and no poppy husk was recovered from the rented house of the accused. 21. Case of the prosecution is that poppy husk weighing 7.5 kg was recovered from the house of accused. PW-15 Bhisham Singh Thakur in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not associated any person residing in the front side of the house, they searched. Volunteered that he has associated Pradhan and Up Pradhan. He has not taken any search warrant for the search of house of accused. House had four rooms. They searched all the four rooms. He found a ration card in the almirah. However, same was not taken into possession. He has not written or mentioned about ration card in any document or daily diary. During the entire search of the house, no document or article was found suggesting that accused was residing in the house. He has not obtained any revenue record of the house from the Patwari as to whom house belonged to nor any record regarding ownership of accused was obtained from Panchayat. It was necessary for him to obtain revenue record to prove that house was owned and possessed by accused. He could get assistance from the local Panchayat also. The alleged ration card recovered by him was not placed on record. It was necessary for him to obtain revenue record to prove that house was owned and possessed by accused. He could get assistance from the local Panchayat also. The alleged ration card recovered by him was not placed on record. It has come in the statement of PW-15 Bhisham Singh Thakur that currency notes recovered from the house belonged to the father of accused, who was owner-in-possession of the house. 22. Case of the prosecution is that 200 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the store rented to the accused by PW-3 Kirat Singh. PW-3 Kirat Singh deposed that he has rented out shop to the accused in March, 2001 for Rs.1200/- per month. He used to pay rent in advance. Accused remained for 1 -1/2 months. No agreement was prepared to this effect. Ext. PW-3/A was given by him. In his cross-examination he admitted that shop was owned by Jiwan Singh, his son. He admitted that the police was planning to arrest him in the case as shop was in his possession. He further admitted that contents of Ext. PW-3/A were not in his handwriting. His signatures were obtained on Ext. PW-3/A in the Police Station. PW-15, Bhisham Singh Thakur, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that Ext. PW-3/A was not given by Kirat Singh. Ext. PW-3/A was not in the handwriting of Kirat Singh. He did not know whose writing it was. He has not investigated the matter qua the ownership of the store except Ext. PW-3/A in this regard. 23. Prosecution has failed to prove that the shop was rented out to the accused. There is no rent note. PW-3 Kirat Singh admitted that police was planning to arrest him in this case. Thus, possibility of giving such certificate by PW-3 Kirat Singh in order to save him can not be ruled out. PW-3 Kirat Singh while appearing in witness box deposed that he has rented out shop to the accused for Rs.1200/- per month. However, in Ext. PW-3/A, it is stated that rent was Rs. 900 per month. There is variance in the statement of PW-3 Kirat Singh and contents of Ext. PW-3/A. Prosecution has failed to prove that store was in occupation and possession of the accused in the capacity of tenant. Recovery of 7.5 kg poppy husk from the house of accused is doubtful. PW-3/A, it is stated that rent was Rs. 900 per month. There is variance in the statement of PW-3 Kirat Singh and contents of Ext. PW-3/A. Prosecution has failed to prove that store was in occupation and possession of the accused in the capacity of tenant. Recovery of 7.5 kg poppy husk from the house of accused is doubtful. PW-15 Bhisham Singh Thakur has not proved any revenue record nor any record from Panchayat to establish that the house from which 7.5 kg Poppy husk was recovered belonged to accused. Independent witnesses PW-1 Pritpal Singh and PW-1 Parmeshwar Dass have not supported the case of the prosecution. According to them, nothing was recovered in their presence from the house or store/shop of the accused. PW-12 Dharam Pal has admitted that Partap, brother of accused, his father and some ladies were present in the house at the time of search. Similarly, PW-7 Kamal Khan also deposed that father of accused was present in the house. Though he did not know about the presence of mother of accused. He also admitted that it was a compact house owned and possessed by brothers and parents of accused. However, PW-12 Dharam Pal admitted that house contained 7 rooms and were situate in ground floor having a common courtyard. 24. Case property was produced in the Court. Who has brought the case property from Malkhana to the Court has not been examined. Entry in the Malkhana register to the effect that who has taken the property to the Court, is necessary as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934. 25. 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 redeposited 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. The prosecution has failed to prove case against the accused. 26. 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. The prosecution has failed to prove case against the accused. 26. Sub-rule (2) Rule 22.18 of Punjab Police Rules, reads as under: (2) All case property and unclaimed property, other than cattle, of which the police have taken possession shall, if capable of being so treated, be kept in the store-room. Otherwise the officer in charge of the police station shall make other suitable arrangements for its safe custody until such time as it can be dealt with under sub-rule (1) above. Each article shall be entered in the store-room register and labelled. The label shall contain a reference to the entry in the store-room register and a description of the article itself and, in the case of articles of case property, a reference to the case number. If several articles are contained in a parcel, a detail of the articles shall be given on the label and in the store-room register. The officer in charge of the police station shall examine Government and other property in the store-room at least twice a month and shall make an entry in the station diary on the Money following the examination to the effect that he has done so. 27. Rule 27.18 of Punjab Police Rules, reads as under: 27.18. Safe custody of property.- (1) Weapons, articles and property sent in connection with cases shall on receipt be entered in register No. 1 and shall (excluding livestock) be properly stored in the store-room of the head of the prosecuting agency, or the police station. See Rule 22.18. When required for production in court such articles shall, at headquarters, be taken out in the presence and under the personal order of an officer of rank not less than prosecuting sub-inspector and an entry made in the register of issue from and return to the prosecuting agency’s store-room, which register shall be maintained in Form 27.18(1). Animals sent in connection with cases shall be kept in the pound attached to the police station at the place to which they have been sent, and the cost of their keep shall be recovered from the District Magistrate in accordance with Rule 25.48. Animals sent in connection with cases shall be kept in the pound attached to the police station at the place to which they have been sent, and the cost of their keep shall be recovered from the District Magistrate in accordance with Rule 25.48. (2) In all cases in which the property consists of bullion, cash, negotiable securities, currency notes or jewellery, exceeding in value Rs. 500 the Superintendent shall obtain the permission of the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer to make it over to the Treasury Officer for safe custody in the treasury. (3) All cash, jewellery and other valuable property of small bulk, which is not required under sub-rule (2) above to be sent to the treasury, shall be kept in a locked strong box in the store-room. Each court orderly shall be provided with a strong lock-up box in which he shall keep all case property while it is in his custody in the court to which he is attached. Case property shall invariably be kept locked-up in such box except when it is actually produced as an exhibit in the course of proceedings. After being so produced it shall be immediately replaced in the lock-up box. Boxes shall be provided from funds at the disposal of the District Magistrate. (4) Property taken out of the main store-room for production in court shall be signed for by the court orderly concerned in register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer authorizing the removal shall initial this entry. Such officer shall similarly, after personal check, initial the entry of return of the property to the main store-room on the closing of the courts. (5) Every day, when the courts close, an officer of the prosecuting branch of rank not less that of sub-inspector shall personally see that the articles produced in court are returned to the store-room, restored to their proper places in the shelves, cup-boards or strong box and registered as required by sub-rule (4) above. The opening of the storeroom in the morning and its closing in the evening shall invariably be in the presence of the police officials named in this rule. Animals brought from the pound shall be repounded under the supervision of a head constable. 28. The opening of the storeroom in the morning and its closing in the evening shall invariably be in the presence of the police officials named in this rule. Animals brought from the pound shall be repounded under the supervision of a head constable. 28. Thus, it is evident from rule 22.18 that the case property is required to be kept in store room and each article is to be entered in store room, registered and labelled and label shall contain a reference to the entry in the store-room register and a description of the article itself and, in the case of articles of case property, a reference to the case number. If several articles are contained in a parcel, a detail of the articles is required to be given on the label and in the store-room register. Similarly, it is provided in Rule 27.18 that Weapons, articles and property sent in connection with cases shall on receipt be entered in register No. 1 and shall (excluding livestock) be properly stored in the store-room of the head of the prosecuting agency, or the police station. The case property when required for production in court such articles shall, at headquarters, be taken out in the presence and under the personal order of an officer of rank not less than prosecuting sub-inspector (now APP/PP) and an entry made in the register of issue from and return to the prosecuting agency’s store-room, which register shall be maintained in Form 27.18(1). Property taken out of the main store-room for production in court is required to be signed for by the court orderly concerned in register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer authorizing the removal shall initial this entry. Such officer similarly, after personal check, is required to initial the entry of return of the property to the main store-room on the closing of the courts. It is further provided in this Rule that every day, when the courts close, an officer of the prosecuting branch of rank not less that of sub-inspector shall personally see that the articles produced in court are returned to the store-room, restored to their proper places in the shelves, cup-boards or strong box and registered as required by sub-rule (4) above. The opening of the storeroom in the morning and its closing in the evening shall invariably be in the presence of the police officials named in this rule. The opening of the storeroom in the morning and its closing in the evening shall invariably be in the presence of the police officials named in this rule. In case property is required to be committed to the higher Court, then under Rule 27.19, the parcel shall be sealed with the seal of the court and made over to the head of the police prosecuting agency, who shall produce it with unbroken seals before the superior court, or, if so ordered by competent authority, shall make it over to some other officer authorized so to produce it. 29. In this case, there is nothing on record to suggest that these Rules were followed while producing case property in the Court and on returning the same. These Rules have been framed to ensure that case property from its initial stage of seizure till production in the Court remains safe/intact and is restored to store room in the presence of senior police officer. Property taken out of the main store-room for production in court is required to be signed by the court orderly concerned in register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer authorizing the removal is required to initial this entry. Such officer shall similarly, after personal check, initial the entry of return of the property to the main store-room on the closing of the courts. 30. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. 31. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No. 179/2012 is allowed. Judgment dated 28.4.2012 rendered by learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Sirmaur at Nahan, HP in Sessions Trial No. 4-N/7 of 2011, is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 15 of the Act, giving him benefit of doubt. He is ordered to be released immediately, if not required by the police in any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him. Registry is directed to prepare and issue release warrants of the accused to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, forthwith. 32. Cr. Appeal No. 378/2012 fails and is accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications, in both the appeals, also stand disposed of.