JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant Rameshwar Lal @ Ramesh Chandra has approached this Court assailing the judgment dated 23.5.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.139/2010 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and sentencing him to suffer 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's additional R.I. 2. Facts in brief are that on 31.3.2010, Hari Ram Soni, SHO Police Station Sendara received a source information to the effect that a white Indica car No.MH12.AF.2648 suspected of carrying illicit poppy straw would be coming from Chittorgarh and would be going towards Jodhpur. The information was taken down in writing and duly forwarded to the superior officers as per requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 3. Thereafter, the SHO summoned two independent Panch witnesses and conducted a Nakabandi at the NH4 near Bar. 4. The car of which the information had been received was seen coming from towards Beawar at about 6.05 AM. The SHO and the members of the raid party signalled the driver to stop the car. One person sitting near the driver managed to escape but the car along with its driver was stopped. The driver disclosed his name to be Rameshwar Lal @ Ramesh Chandra i.e. the appellant herein. Search proceedings were initiated after following the due formalities required under the NDPS Act. 6 gunny bags containing illicit poppy straw were found concealed in the car. On weighment, total weight of the contraband came to be 110 Kgs. Two samples of 1 Kg. each were taken out from each gunny bag and were sealed and chits bearing signatures of all concerned were applied thereupon. The remaining poppy straw was also sealed and marked with identifying chits in the original gunny bags. The appellant allegedly disclosed that the person, who had run away, was Dinesh Vishnoi and that the car was owned by one Jawari Lal Vishnoi. However, upon investigation, the registered owner of the offending vehicle was found to be one Shankar S/o Bhopaji r/o Mandal, Bhilwara. The appellant allegedly disclosed that the person, who had run away, was Dinesh Vishnoi and that the car was owned by one Jawari Lal Vishnoi. However, upon investigation, the registered owner of the offending vehicle was found to be one Shankar S/o Bhopaji r/o Mandal, Bhilwara. The Investigating Officer concluded investigation and filed a regular charge-sheet against the appellant and a charge-sheet was filed against the absconding co-accused Shankar, Dinesh and Jawari Lal under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Later on, Jawari Lal was also arrested in the case and a subsequent charge-sheet was also filed against him. The remaining two accused Dinesh and Shankar could not be apprehended and are still absconding. 5. The learned trial Judge, framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and against the accused Jawari Lal for the offence under Section 8/15 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case set up by prosecution and examined three witnesses in defence. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the co-accused Jawari Lal of the charges but convicted and sentenced the appellant Rameshwar Lal @ Ramesh Chandra as above. Being aggrieved, he has approached this Court by way of this appeal assailing the judgment dated 23.5.2015. 6. Shri BR Godara learned counsel representing the appellant limited his challenge to the impugned judgment on a solitary ground and urged that the prosecution failed to exhibit the Muddamal in its original state at the trial and as such, the conviction of the appellant for the alleged possession and transportation of poppy straw is totally illegal. 7. He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Noor Agha v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2008 CrLR (SC) 655, Jitendra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003(2) WLC (SC) Criminal 633 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Thakara Ram & Anr. 7. He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Noor Agha v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2008 CrLR (SC) 655, Jitendra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003(2) WLC (SC) Criminal 633 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Thakara Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014(1) CrLR (Raj.) 134 and submitted that during the trial of a case under the NDPS Act, it is mandatory for the prosecution to exhibit the Muddamal in the court in a proper identifiable condition so as to prove the seizure. Failure to do so would completely vitiate the entire recovery. He referred to the statement of the Seizure Officer PW12 Hari Ram, during whose testimony, the prosecution attempted to exhibit the Muddamal of the case and urged that when the witness brought the goods in the court, it came to light that no identifiable marks were existing on the gunny bags produced in the court. The Seizure Officer admitted that 5 out of the 6 seized packets were repacked in new gunny bags and none of the bags were having any seals or the chits appended thereupon. The witness exhibited only the 12 sample packets. He urged that as the seized goods were not exhibited at the trial, the entire prosecution case regarding the seizure has to be discarded and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of appellant's conviction as recorded by the learned trial Court and urged that as per ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Rangi Ram v. State of Haryana reported in JT 2000(5) SC 494 and Delhi High Court's Judgment in the case of Jodha Sahani v. State of NCT of Delhi passed in Cr.Appeal No.259/2006 decided on 13.9.2010 which were relied upon by the trial Court, mere non-production of the Muddamal in its original state would not adversely affect the prosecution case. As per him, the prosecution proved the recovery of the contraband by leading proper oral and documentary evidence. He, therefore, urged that no interference is called for in the judgment of the appellant's conviction as recorded by the learned trial Judge. 9. As per him, the prosecution proved the recovery of the contraband by leading proper oral and documentary evidence. He, therefore, urged that no interference is called for in the judgment of the appellant's conviction as recorded by the learned trial Judge. 9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 10. The independent witnesses associated with the recovery being Avtar Singh PW.1, Ramchandra PW.3 and Anil Mishra PW.4 did not support the prosecution story at the trial and were declared hostile. 11. Since the appellant's counsel has challenged the impugned judgment limiting his arguments to a solitary ground i.e. the non-exhibition of the Muddamal in the Court in its original state, the only relevant piece of evidence for appreciating the said argument, is that of the Seizure Officer PW 12 Hari Ram. 11. Since the appellant's counsel has challenged the impugned judgment limiting his arguments to a solitary ground i.e. the non-exhibition of the Muddamal in the Court in its original state, the only relevant piece of evidence for appreciating the said argument, is that of the Seizure Officer PW 12 Hari Ram. The relevant portion of the testimony of this witness is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: ^^vfHk0 lk{kh uacj 12 gjhjke ckn tkap vkfVZdy 1 ls 6 o dUV~ksy lSEiy 7 ls 12 gS o eky otg lcwr 13 yxk;r 18 gSA vkfVZdy 1 yxk;r 12 ij , ls ch esjs lh ls Mh o bZ ls ,Q ekSrfcjku o th ls ,p jkes'oj ds gLrk{kj rFkk ,Dl LFkku ij uewuk lhy vafdr gSA vkfVZdy 13 rd lcwr cksjh gS ftl ij fpV~V yxh gS ftl ij psik yxk gqvk gS ugha gSA vkfVZdy 14 yxk;r 18 cksfj;ka QVh gqbZ gSA ftudks ubZ cksfj;ksa esa Mkydj eqag ca/kk gqvk gS ,oa tks QVh gqbZ cksfj;ka gS mu ij psis yxs gq, ugha gS ml ij fpV~V yxs gq, gSA eSaus psis yxk, Fks le; T;knk gksus ds dkj.k oks u"V gks x,] mDr eky eky[kkuk esa j[kk gqvk Fkk ,oa esjk LFkkukUrj.k Hkh gks x;k FkkA le; vf/kd gksus ds dkj.k cksfj;ksa dks nhed [kk xbZA eSaus bl eqdnesa dh pktZ'khV eqfYteku jkes'oj mQZ jes'k ds f[kykQ 8@15 o fnus'k] tojhyky] 'kadj ds f[kykQ 8@15 o 25 o 29 ,uMhih,l esa vkjksi i= U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;kA jkstukepk izekf.kr gS izn'kZ djokus dh vuqefr nh xbZA izfrijh{k.k }kjk vf/koDrk Jh ch0,y0xksnkjk okLrs vfHk;qDr jkes'oj%& ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 1 yxk;r 12 ij eqag ij cka/kdj ,d txg fpV~V yxh gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 1 yxk;r 12 ij tks psik yxk gS oks diM+s dh FkSyh dh flykbZ ij ugha gSA cfYd chp esa yxk gqvk gSA ;g lgh gS fd mDr FkSfy;ka nksuksa rjQ ls lhyh gqbZ gS tks nksuksa rjQ vanj dh rjQ lhyh gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd FkSfy;ksa ds nksuksa flykbZ dks [kksyk tk, rks bu ij yxk gqvk psik ugha VqVsxkA vkt [kqn dgk fd ijUrq ;fn FkSyh dks [kksyk tk; rks flykbZ okil vanj ls ugha gks ldrh vkSj flykbZ Li"V fn[kkbZ nsxhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd vk/kqfud e'khu vkus ls ckgj ls vanj dh flykbZ dh tk ldrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 13 ij dksbZ psik yxk gqvk ugha gS cfYd fpV~V yxh gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 13 ij esjs] ekSrfcjku o eqfYtekuksa ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA vkt [kqn dgk fd mDr cksjs ij yxk psik yacs le; o ckfj'k ds dkj.k u"V gks x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 13 ij dksbZ lhvkj ua0 o ekdkZ vafdr ugha gSA vkt [kqn dgk fd D;ksafd mDr cksfj;ka VkV dh gS ftl ij ;g vafdr djuk laHko ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd otg lcwr vkfVZdy 14 ls 18 ij Hkh psik ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 14 ls 18 ij esjs o eqfYteku ds gLrk{kj ugha gS vkSj u gh bl ij ekdkZ o lhvkj ua0 vafdr gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 14 ls 18 esa otg lcwr eky tks cksfj;ksa esa Hkjk gqvk Fkk oks nwljh cksfj;ksa esa Hkjk gqvk gSA vt [kqn dgk fd D;ksafd yacs le; o ckfj'k dh otg ls ewy cksfj;ka [kjkc gksdj dkQh gn rd u"V gks xbZ Fkh bl dkj.k mudks ubZ cksfj;ksa esa Mkyk x;kA gekjs eky[kkus dk dejk cuk gqvk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd gekjs eky[kkus ds dejs esa ckfj'k dk ikuh ugha tkrk gSA vkt [kqn dgk fd D;ksafd Fkkus dh bZekjr iqjkuh gS bl dkj.k ckfj'k dk ikuh bl dejs esa vkrk gSA ;gh lgh gS fd eky[kkus jftLV~j izn'kZ ih 14 esa eky ckfj'k ls [kjkc gks xbZ bl dkj.k mls ubZ cksfj;ksa esa Hkjk Fkk bldk dksbZ uksV blesa ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eky vkfVZdy 13 yxk;r 18 bl izdj.k ls lacaf/kr ugha gks bl dkj.k ml ij lhy psik ugha gks vkSj bl dkj.k gh ml lhvkj ua0 o ekdkZ vafdr ugha gks** 12. From the above quoted testimony of the Seizure Officer, Hari Ram, PW.13, it is evident that when the Seizure Officer produced the Muddamal in the court, it was not in an identifiable condition. The witness admitted that the original bags in which the poppy straw was packed and sealed during the search and seizure proceedings were replaced by new bags owing to the decaying of the original packaging by exposure to elements. The testimony of the Seizure Officer leads to the irrefutable conclusion that when he brought the case property in the Court, it was neither having any seals nor did it bear any identifiable marks so as to connect it with the alleged recovery. 13. The learned trial Judge, relied upon a judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Jodha Sahani (supra) and a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rangi Ram v. State of Haryana reported in JT 2000(5) SC 494 and turned down the argument advanced by the appellant's counsel that the non-exhibition of the Muddamal in the selfsame condition is fatal to the prosecution. 14. This Court in the case of Aladdin & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Appeal No.1050/2015) decided on 19.2.2016 examined this very controversy after taking note of various judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court on the issue of non-production of Muddamal in the court and its effect on the prosecution case during a trial for the offences under the NDPS Act and proceeded to hold held that in cases involving recovery of narcotics, the prosecution is under an obligation to produce and exhibit the Muddamal in the court in the self same condition in which it was seized. The judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Noor Agha v. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2008 CrLR (SC) 655, Jitendra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003-04 (Supp) CrLR (SC) 699, Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1335 and Vijay Jain v. State of M.P. reported in 2013(14) SCC 527 as well this Court's judgments in the cases of Thakara Ram v. State of Rajasthan being S.B.Cr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003-04 (Supp) CrLR (SC) 699, Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1335 and Vijay Jain v. State of M.P. reported in 2013(14) SCC 527 as well this Court's judgments in the cases of Thakara Ram v. State of Rajasthan being S.B.Cr. Appeal No.311/2009 decided on 4.10.2013 and Bhagirath Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 117, propounding this view and the contrary view in the case of Gian Chand v. State of Haryana reported in (2013)14 SCC 420 , were all considered and it was laid down that failure to exhibit the Muddamal in the self same condition is fatal to the prosecution in a case involving recovery of narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances. The only mode by which, the prosecution can avoid this burden is, by exhibiting the photographs, inventory and the representative samples prepared under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Admittedly, the said procedure was not followed in this case. 15. Non-exhibition of the Muddamal in the court leads to the irrefutable conclusion that the prosecution failed to lead primary evidence of the seizure and thus, the entire evidence of the prosecution regarding the alleged seizure has to be discarded. 16. In the case of Rangi Ram, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made a passing reference to the fact that the seal applied on the bag of Muddamal produced in the court was broken. The circumstances noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case do not reveal that the exhibited case property was not even having any identifying marks so as to link it with the recovery. The impact of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was neither referred to nor considered in the said judgment. The observations made in Rangi Ram's case are just by way of a passing reference and do not even constitute "obiter dicta". On the other hand, the later judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Noor Agha, Jitendra, Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal and Vijay Jain take into account the statutory provision which was introduced in the Act on 29.5.1989 by way of an amendment i.e. Section 52A of the NDPS Act. On the other hand, the later judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Noor Agha, Jitendra, Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal and Vijay Jain take into account the statutory provision which was introduced in the Act on 29.5.1989 by way of an amendment i.e. Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases laid down the "ratio decidendi" propounding that production and exhibition of Muddamal in the selfsame condition is essential to prove the recovery. As the judgments in the cases of Jitendra, Ashok alias Dangra Jaiswal and Vijay Jain lay down the "ratio decidendi" on the issue, they would be having a binding force as against the judgment in the case of Rangi Ram in which only a passing reference was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding seal being broken on the exhibited Muddamal. Thus, the learned trial Court clearly erred while relying on the judgment in Rangi Ram's case over and above the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh which was cited before the learned trial Court. 17. As a consequence of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 23.5.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Jodhpur is hereby set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Record be sent back.