JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal has been instituted against Judgment /Order dated 28.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP camp at Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 13/3 of 2013, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20 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 a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment, for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that ASI Amar Nath (PW-12), alongwith HC Ranjeet Singh (PW-10), HC Kartar Singh (PW-9) and C. Kamal Kishore was present at Barmana Chowk for streamlining the traffic and for checking of the vehicles on 25.8.2012 at about 9.00 AM. At about 11.00 AM, a Nano car bearing registration No. HP-33A-Temp.9295 came from Slapper side. ASI Amar Nath signalled the car to stop. ASI Amar Nath asked the driver to show the documents. As the driver got frightened, police got suspicious. Accused disclosed his name. Accused was apprised by the ASI Amar Nath that they wanted to search the vehicle as they suspected that there was some contraband in the vehicle. Accused was apprised that he could give his personal search to a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Accused gave his consent to be searched by the police officials. Consent memo Ext PW-1/A was prepared to this effect. Witnesses Prem Lal (PW-1) and Daleep Singh (PW- 2) were associated in the investigation by ASI Amar Nath. ASI Amar Nath and others gave their personal search to the accused in the presence of Prem Lal and Daleep Singh. Memo Ext. PW- 1/B was prepared in this regard. Vehicle was searched in the presence of witnesses and a carry bag Ext P2, red, blue and yellow in colour was recovered from beneath the driver’s seat. It was checked and found to be containing a transparent polythene bag Ext. P3, which was having stick, round and pan cake shaped black substance. It was found to be Charas. It weighed 988 grams. It was put back in the same polythene bag and thereafter put in the carry bag from which it was recovered. It was checked and found to be containing a transparent polythene bag Ext. P3, which was having stick, round and pan cake shaped black substance. It was found to be Charas. It weighed 988 grams. It was put back in the same polythene bag and thereafter put in the carry bag from which it was recovered. Carry bag was sealed in a parcel of cloth Ext. P1. Bag was signed by witnesses Daleep Singh and Prem Lal and also by accused. NCB form in triplicate was filled in. Sample seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth, one of which is Ext. PW-9/B. Seal impression was also put on NCB form and seal was handed over to witness Daleep Singh after use. Seizure memo Ext. PW- 1/C was prepared, which was signed by witnesses Daleep Singh, Prem Lal, HC Kartar Singh and by accused. Rukka Ext PW-6/A was drawn and handed over to HC Ranjeet Singh with the direction to carry it to the Police Station Barmana for registration of FIR. HC Ranjeet Singh had handed over the rukka to PW-6 SI Govind Ram. Case property was deposited with HC Roshan Lal. He entered the same in Malkhana Register at Sr. No. 1189. He handed over the case property to HC Thakur Dass (PW-13) on 27.8.2012 for carrying the same to the SFSL Junga vide rc No. 80/12. He deposited the same in safe condition with the SFSL Junga and handed over receipt to the MHC. Special report was prepared and sent to the ASP Bilaspur. Report of chemical analysis is Ext. PA. According to Ext. PA, sample of Charas contained 25.71% W/W resin in it. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Learned trial Court convicted the accused. Hence, this appeal. 4. Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment/order of conviction dated 28.7.2014. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Prem Lal testified that he is a taxi operator at Barmana. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment/order of conviction dated 28.7.2014. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Prem Lal testified that he is a taxi operator at Barmana. He was sitting in his office when police called him. They told him that some contraband had been recovered from a boy who was sitting with the police officials in a shop. He did not know about the quantity of the contraband. Contraband was not recovered in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the public prosecutor. He admitted in his cross-examination that on 25.8.2012 at about 11.00 AM, he alongwith Daleep Singh was present in the office of Taxi Union. He denied that he was standing at the gate of ACC Cement Factory at Barmana Chowk when there was a traffic jam. He also denied that police was trying to streamline the traffic. He further denied that at that time, a sky blue coloured Nano car came from the side of Slapper. He denied that the vehicle was checked and driver could not produce document. He denied portion A to A of his statement mark ‘P’. He also denied that the driver got frightened. He further denied that he was in possession of some contraband. He denied that the police apprised accused of his right to get searched before a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. He denied portion B to B of his statement mark ‘P’. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/A. He denied that the police officials had given their personal search to the accused. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW- 1/B. He denied the suggestion that on conducting search of bag, one carry bag blue, red and yellow, was recovered. He denied that it contained one polythene bag, which was containing black sticks and Chapati shaped substances. He denied that the substance was found to be Charas. He also denied that Charas was weighed in his presence and was found to be 988 grams. He denied that recovered Charas was put back in the same polythene packet and thereafter in the same carry bag and then sealed in a cloth parcel with nine seal impressions ‘T’. He denied that sealed parcel was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo. He admitted his signatures on Ext. He denied that recovered Charas was put back in the same polythene packet and thereafter in the same carry bag and then sealed in a cloth parcel with nine seal impressions ‘T’. He denied that sealed parcel was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/C. He admitted that Daleep Singh was present with him when all the documents were signed by him. He admitted that all the documents were written when he signed them. He also denied portion C to C of his statement mark ‘P’. 8. PW-2 Daleep Singh deposed that he was working as a taxi operator and owned taxi bearing No.HP-01B-0679. Nothing has happened in his presence. He was called to the police station by the police. He was made to sign the documents. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion, in his crossexamination, that on 25.8.2012 at about 11.00 AM, he alongwith Prem Lal was standing near the gate of ACC Cement Factory at Barmana Chowk and police was streamlining the traffic. He denied that a blue coloured Nano car came from Slapper side. He denied that vehicle was checked and driver could not produce documents. He denied that the police suspected the accused to be in possession of some contraband. He also denied that accused was apprised by the police of his right to get himself searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/A in circle ‘B’. He denied that the police officials have given their personal search to the accused. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW- 1/B. He denied that on conducting search of car, one carry bag blue, red and yellow was recovered from beneath the driver’s seat. He denied that on opening carry bag, one polythene bag was found which contained black coloured substance in sticks and chapatti shapes. He denied that the substance was Charas. He further denied that Charas weighed 988 grams. He also denied that Charas was put back in polythene bag and then in carry bag and sealed in cloth parcel with nine seal impressions ‘T’. He denied that the cloth parcel was taken into possession by the police. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/C. He denied that Prem Lal was present with him when all the documents were written, and he signed them. He denied that the cloth parcel was taken into possession by the police. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/C. He denied that Prem Lal was present with him when all the documents were written, and he signed them. He denied portion A to A of his statement mark ‘D’. In his crossexamination by the learned Defence Counsel, he admitted that in his presence car was not searched. He admitted that no contraband was recovered in his presence from the car. He also admitted that documents were signed by him in the Police Station. 9. PW-3 HC Roshan Lal deposed that on 25.8.2012 at about 3.25 PM, SI Govind Ram deposited a parcel duly sealed with nine seal impressions ‘T’ and five seal impressions of ‘H’ stated to be containing 988 grams of Charas in a carry bag, specimen of seals ‘T’ and ‘H’ and NCB form in triplicate. He made entry in Malkhana Register at Sr. No. 1189. On the same day, ASI Amar Nath had deposited with him a Nano car bearing registration No. HP-33A-Temp.-9295. He deposed that he filled in column No. 12 of NCB form in triplicate on 27.8.2012, and sent the parcels alongwith specimen of seals, NBC form in triplicate and copy of FIR and copy of Memo through Constable Thakur Dass to SFSL Junga vide RC No. 80/12. 10. PW-6 SI Govind Ram, testified that on 25.8.2012 at about 1.10 PM, he received a Rukka Ext. PW-6/A, on the basis of which FR Ext. PW-6/B was registered in the Police Station. He made an endorsement in red circle ‘A’ on Rukka Ext. PW- 6/A. At about 3.00 PM, ASI Amar Nath produced before him a sealed parcel duly sealed with 9 seal impressions of ‘T’. Parcel was stated to be containing 988 grams of Charas. Alongwith it, NCB form in triplicate and specimen of seal ‘T’ was also handed over to him by ASI Amar Nath. He resealed the same with 5 seal impressions of ‘H’. Specimen of seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth Ext. PW-6/C and its impression was embossed on NCB. He issued resealing certificate Ext. PW-6/D. He deposited the case property alongwith specimen of seal and NCB form in triplicate with MHC of the police station. Case property was produced in the Court during the examination-in-chief of PW-6 Govind Ram. Specimen of seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth Ext. PW-6/C and its impression was embossed on NCB. He issued resealing certificate Ext. PW-6/D. He deposited the case property alongwith specimen of seal and NCB form in triplicate with MHC of the police station. Case property was produced in the Court during the examination-in-chief of PW-6 Govind Ram. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the Rukka was received in the Police Station at about 1.10 PM through Ranjeet Singh and FIR was registered within 20 minutes. File was sent to the IO thereafter. 11. PW-9 HC Kartar Singh deposed that on 25.8.2012, he alongwith ASI Amar Nath, HC Ranjeet Singh and Constable Kamal Kishore was present at Barmana Chowk for traffic checking at about 9.00 AM. At about 11.00 AM, while the traffic was being regulated, one Nano car bearing registration No. HP- 33A-Temp.-9295 came from the side of Slapper. It was signalled to stop. Identity of accused was established. He got frightened. Suspicion arose. IO informed the accused that they wanted to search his vehicle as they suspected contraband in it. Accused was apprised that he could give his personal search to the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, accused consented to be searched by the police. Memo Ext. PW-1/A was prepared. A carry bag was recovered from beneath the driver’s seat. It was opened. It contained Charas, which weighed 988 grams. Sealing and sampling proceedings were completed. In his cross- examination, he admitted that shops were open at the time when he stopped vehicle. None of the shopkeepers was associated in the proceedings. 12. PW-10 Ranjeet Singh deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and search, sealing and seizure proceedings were completed at the spot on 25.8.2012. IO prepared Ext. PW-6/A. It was handed over to him to be taken to the Police Station. He handed over Rukka to MHC on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW-6/B was registered. File was prepared and handed over to him for giving the same to the IO. He took the file and handed over it to the IO. 13. PW-12 ASI Amar Nath, deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and search, sealing and seizure proceedings were completed at the spot on 25.8.2012. Rukka Ext. PW-6/A was prepared and handed over to Ranjeet Singh for taking it to the Police Station for registration of FIR. He took the file and handed over it to the IO. 13. PW-12 ASI Amar Nath, deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and search, sealing and seizure proceedings were completed at the spot on 25.8.2012. Rukka Ext. PW-6/A was prepared and handed over to Ranjeet Singh for taking it to the Police Station for registration of FIR. He prepared the spot map Ext. PW-12/A. He produced the case property before SHO Govind Ram. He resealed the parcel with seal ‘H’ and issued certificate Ext PW-6/D. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that the spot is on National Highway. He admitted that on both the sides of National Highway, there were shops which remained open during day time. He admitted that on that day, shops were open. He admitted that no shopkeeper was associated as witness. No file was received by him through HC Ranjeet Singh for investigation. 14. According to Section 50, accused is to be apprised of his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. There is no third option to be searched by the police officer. In the case in hand, consent memo Ext. PW-1/A, consent of the accused was sought to be searched before a police officer or before a Gazetted Officer. Accused has a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Thus, Ext. PW-1/A was not in conformity with Section 50 of the Act. According to the mandate of Section 50 of the Act, accused is to be given option to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate but not before the police officer. 15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of M.P. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 550 , have held as under: “16. The above panchnama indicates that the appellants were merely asked to give their consent for search by the police party and not apprised of their legal right provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to refuse/to allow the police party to take their search and opt for being search before the Gazetted officer or by the Magistrate. In other words, a reading of panchnama makes it clear that the appellants were not apprised about their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but consent was a sought for their personal search. In other words, a reading of panchnama makes it clear that the appellants were not apprised about their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but consent was a sought for their personal search. Merely asking them as to whether they would offer their personal search to him i.e. the police officer or to Gazetted Officer may not satisfy the protection afforded under Section 50 o the nds Act as interpreted in Baldev Singh case. 17. Further a reading of the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court also show that in the presence of Panchas, the SHO merely asked all the three appellants for their search by him and they simply agreed. This is reflected in the Panchnama. Though in Baldev Singh's case, this Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether the provisions of Section 50 are mandatory or directory but "failure to inform" the person concerned of his right as emanating from sub-section (1) of Section 50 may render the recovery of the contraband suspect and the conviction and sentence of an accused bad and unsustainable in law. In Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja's case, recently the Constitution Bench has explained the mandate provided under sub-section (1) of Section 50 and concluded that it is mandatory and requires strict compliance. The Bench also held that failure to comply with the provision would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction if the same is recorded only on the basis of the recovery of the illicit article from the person of the accused during such search. The concept of substantial compliance as noted in Joseph Fernadez and Prabha Shankar Dubey were not acceptable by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, accordingly, in view of the language as evident from the panchnama which we have quoted earlier, we hold that, in the case on hand, the search and seizure of the suspect from the person of the appellants is bad and conviction is unsustainable in law.” 16. It was not necessary for the police to carry out personal search of the accused when bag was recovered from the accused. But personal search of accused was carried out. Thus, compliance of Section 50 of the Act, was required to be made in its letter and spirit. 17. It was not necessary for the police to carry out personal search of the accused when bag was recovered from the accused. But personal search of accused was carried out. Thus, compliance of Section 50 of the Act, was required to be made in its letter and spirit. 17. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345 , have held that there is a need for individual communication to each accused and individual consent by each accused under Section 50 of the Act. Their lordships have also held that Section 50 does not provide for third option. Their lordships have also held that if a bag carried by the accused is searched and his personal search is also started, Section 50 would be applicable. Their lordships have held as under: “15. Thus, if merely a bag carried by a person is searched without there being any search of his person, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have no application. But if the bag carried by him is searched and his person is also searched, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have application. In this case, respondent No.1 Parmanand’s bag was searched. From the bag, opium was recovered. His personal search was also carried out. Personal search of respondent No.2 Surajmal was also conducted. Therefore, in light of judgments of this Court mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have application. 16. It is now necessary to examine whether in this case, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is breached or not. The police witnesses have stated that the respondents were informed that they have a right to be searched before a nearest Gazetted Officer or a nearest Magistrate or before PW-5 J.S. Negi, the Superintendent. They were given a written notice. As stated by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh, it is not necessary to inform the accused person, in writing, of his right under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. His right can be orally communicated to him. But, in this case, there was no individual communication of right. A common notice was given on which only respondent No.2 – Surajmal is stated to have signed for himself and for respondent No.1 – Parmanand. Respondent No.1 Parmanand did not sign. 19. His right can be orally communicated to him. But, in this case, there was no individual communication of right. A common notice was given on which only respondent No.2 – Surajmal is stated to have signed for himself and for respondent No.1 – Parmanand. Respondent No.1 Parmanand did not sign. 19. We also notice that PW-10 SI Qureshi informed the respondents that they could be searched before the nearest Magistrate or before a nearest Gazetted Officer or before PW-5 J.S. Negi, the Superintendent, who was a part of the raiding party. It is the prosecution case that the respondents informed the officers that they would like to be searched before PW-5 J.S. Negi by PW-10 SI Qureshi. This, in our opinion, is again a breach of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. The idea behind taking an accused to a nearest Magistrate or a nearest Gazetted Officer, if he so requires, is to give him a chance of being searched in the presence of an independent officer. Therefore, it was improper for PW-10 SI Qureshi to tell the respondents that a third alternative was available and that they could be searched before PW-5 J.S. Negi, the Superintendent, who was part of the raiding party. PW-5 J.S. Negi cannot be called an independent officer. We are not expressing any opinion on the question whether if the respondents had voluntarily expressed that they wanted to be searched before PW-5 J.S. Negi, the search would have been vitiated or not. But PW-10 SI Qureshi could not have given a third option to the respondents when Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act does not provide for it and when such option would frustrate the provisions of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act. On this ground also, in our opinion, the search conducted by PW-10 SI Qureshi is vitiated. 20. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding that breach of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act has vitiated the search. The conviction of the respondents was, therefore, illegal. The respondents have rightly been acquitted by the High Court. It is not possible to hold that the High Court’s view is perverse. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 18. Case of the prosecution has not at all been supported by PW-1 Prem Lal and PW-2 Daleep Singh. They have denied that the contraband was recovered in their presence. The respondents have rightly been acquitted by the High Court. It is not possible to hold that the High Court’s view is perverse. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 18. Case of the prosecution has not at all been supported by PW-1 Prem Lal and PW-2 Daleep Singh. They have denied that the contraband was recovered in their presence. They have also denied that search, sealing and sampling proceedings were completed before them. It is settled law by now that the statements of official witnesses, if inspire confidence, can be taken into consideration. But, in the present case, there are material contradictions in the statements of official witnesses. PW-10 Ranjeet Singh, in his examination-inchief, deposed that IO handed over Rukka Ext. PW-6/A, to be taken to the Police Station for registration of case. He gave rukka to the SHO, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-6/B was registered. File was prepared and handed over to him for taking to IO. He took the file and handed over the same to IO on the spot. However, in his cross-examination, he deposed that after depositing Rukka, he never came back to the spot with the file. PW-12 Amar Nath, in his examination-in-chief deposed that he was handed over file by HC Ranjeet Singh at the spot. This is a major contradiction, which casts doubt on the version of the prosecution. Vehicle was signalled to stop on a National Highway. Police has not associated any independent witnesses by associating shopkeepers when all the shops were open at the time when vehicle was stopped. 19. Case property was produced before the Court during the examination-in-chief of PW-6, Govind Ram. It was produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. 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. 20. 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. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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). 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. (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. (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. 23. 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. 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. 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. 24. 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 25. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 26. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. Judgment /Order dated 28.7.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, HP camp at Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 13/3 of 2013 is set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 20 of the Act. He is ordered to be released, if not required to by the Police in any other case. Fine amount, if any deposited by the accused, be refunded to him. Accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 20 of the Act. He is ordered to be released, if not required to by the Police in any other case. Fine amount, if any deposited by the accused, be refunded to him. Registry is directed to prepare and send the release warrant of the accused to the Superintendent of Jail concerned, forthwith.