JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. 1. Judgment dated 20.07.2013 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge Udhampur (in File No. 10/Spl. Challan titled 'State v. Jarnail Singh and another') acquitting the respondents in FIR No. 107/2005, Police Station, Chennai of the charges u/S's., 8/15, NDPS Act, has been challenged with a prayer for accepting the Appeal, setting aside the acquittal and for convicting the respondents. We have heard learned Dy. Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone over the record. 2. Prosecution case is of interception of Oil tanker bearing registration No. JK05A/0306 en route Srinagar to Jammu at Domail, Chennai on Srinagar-Jammu National Highway, in which, the respondents/accused were present at the relevant time and on search of the tanker, a packet of Poppy Straw was found in the cabin of the said vehicle which could not be accounted for by the respondents leading to registration of case FIR No. 107/2005, Police Station, Chennai u/S's, 8/15, NDPS Act. Recovered contraband was found to be weighing 1 kg 300 gms. Sample of the same was extracted for chemical examination, where-after sample packet and remaining contraband was seized and sealed on spot, besides the tanker was also seized. Pursuant to investigation, accused-respondents were charged u/S's, 8/15 NDPS Act. 3. During trial, 11 out of total of 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused did not enter defence, instead denied involvement in the crime attributed to them. 4. That as per the impugned judgment, seizure memo prepared i.e. Ext. P-1 dated 07.12.2005 was signed by PW's Qamar Din and Susheel Kumar and was attested by the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Chennai. Carbon copy of the same bears signature of the SHO, Police Station Chennai, witnesses as well as Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Chennai. However, space on the carbon copy of the memo for writing weight of the contraband was blank whereas in the original memo, weight of contraband is mentioned as 1 kg 300 gms. Carbon copy of the same bears signature of the SHO, Police Station Chennai, witnesses as well as Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Chennai. However, space on the carbon copy of the memo for writing weight of the contraband was blank whereas in the original memo, weight of contraband is mentioned as 1 kg 300 gms. Space for recording weight in the original as well as carbon copy of the Seizure memos was not filled-up on preparation of the Seizure memos and the Seizure memos were merely got signed from the witnesses and attested by the Magistrate while the space for mentioning weight was left blank and was filled up in the original subsequently as stands confirmed from the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, who, in his deposition stated that space for recording weight of the contraband was left blank in the original as well as carbon copy when he attested the seizure memos and the blank space in the original was filled up later. 5. PW Qamar Din, i.e. witness to the seizure memos stated that the space for mentioning weight of the contraband was left blank when he signed the carbon copy of the seizure memos. Likewise, PW Susheel Kumar also stated that the space for weight of the contraband was left blank when he signed the seizure memos. 6. That in the aforementioned background, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the investigation was not as expected from an investigating officer and reflected a complete betrayal of trust reposed by law in the investigating agency and no sanctity could be attached to such an investigation, particularly, when there was discrepancies in the version of witnesses with regard to the weight of contraband recovered, weight of samples drawn, number of samples drawn as also of blank spaces left in the Seizure memos at the time of preparation of the Seizure memos cannot be said to be incorrect. 7. That the contradictions in the prosecution case stand highlighted from the statement of PWs. PW Rajesh Kumar stated that two samples were drawn, whereas PW Qamar Din stated that three samples weighing 100 gms each were drawn and further that only 1 kg of contraband was recovered while the seizure memo Ext. P-1 mentions three samples weighing 100 gms each having been drawn from the recovered contraband and forwarded to the FSL. PW Rajesh Kumar stated that two samples were drawn, whereas PW Qamar Din stated that three samples weighing 100 gms each were drawn and further that only 1 kg of contraband was recovered while the seizure memo Ext. P-1 mentions three samples weighing 100 gms each having been drawn from the recovered contraband and forwarded to the FSL. PW Susheel Kumar also stated that only 1 kg of contraband was recovered. On the contrary, Ext. P-1 prepared on 07.12.2005 and signed by PWs Qamar Din and Susheel Kumar, attested by Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Chennai in the original memo mentions the weight of seized contraband as 1 kg 300 gms whereas space for mentioning the weight of contraband on the carbon copy of the same is blank although it bears the original signatures of the Executive Magistrate, witnesses besides SHO Police Station Chennai. 8. That, apparently, space for recording weight in the original as well as carbon copy of the Seizure memos was not filled-up on preparation of the Seizure memos although they were duly signed by the SHO and witnesses and attested by the Magistrate, and the blank space in the original was filled up subsequently while that in the carbon copy remained unfilled. Aforementioned fact stands confirmed from the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, who, in his deposition stated that space for recording weight of the contraband was left blank in the original as well as carbon copy when he attested the seizure memos and that the blank space in the original was filled up later on. 9. PW Rajesh Kumar who was declared hostile stated that on 07.12.2005 he was at the Nakka Point Chennai along with Head Constable Payar Singh and Poppy Straw was not recovered in his presence by PW Payar Singh, that it was the SHO who recovered the Poppy Straw from the rear side of the tanker in question. During cross examination, he refuted the suggestion that Poppy Straw was recovered from the cabin of the tanker. He further stated that there were about 15/20 shops and hotels near the place of recovery and people were present in the shops at the relevant time. 10. PW Payar Singh, on the other hand, stated that about 1 kg 300 gms of Poppy Straw was recovered from the cabin of the tanker, out of which, sample of 100 gms was separated for chemical examination. 10. PW Payar Singh, on the other hand, stated that about 1 kg 300 gms of Poppy Straw was recovered from the cabin of the tanker, out of which, sample of 100 gms was separated for chemical examination. In cross-examination, he stated that SHO and Tehsildar came on the spot together. However, before their arrival on the spot, he had recovered the Poppy Straw and only sealing of the packets was done on the spot, while rest of the proceedings were completed in the Police Station. 11. PW Qamar Din stated that 1 kg of Poppy Straw was recovered from the possession of the respondents, who were in the cabin of the tanker, out of which three samples of 100 gms each were drawn for chemical examination, that people were watching the proceedings on the spot. However, as per Carbon copy of seizure memo on record, weight of the Poppy Straw recovered has not been mentioned and said space has been left blank. On the other hand, PW Susheel Kumar deposed that both the accused were in the tanker, PW Qamar Din searched the cabin of the tanker and recovered 1 kg of Poppy Straw, out of which, sample of 100 gms was drawn and sealed separately, that there were 4/5 civilians on the spot and that he had signed the carbon copy of the seizure memo in which the space for weight of the contraband had been left blank. 12. PW Nazir Ahmed stated that he was on duty at Nakkar Point Domail when a tanker which was being driven by respondent No. 1 and in which respondent No. 2 was present in the tanker as a conductor was stopped for checking, that PW Payar Singh recovered a packet of Poppy Straw weighing 1 kg 300 gms from the truck, it was divided in two parts of 100 gms and 1 kg 200 gms. However, in cross-examination, he stated that he was told by the Incharge of the Nakka team that Poppy Straw was recovered from the truck, that the SHO and his PSO-Rajeev had come on the spot, no one else came there, nothing was done on spot and all formalities were completed in the Police Station. 13. PW Ajit Singh stated that accused was not known to him and he was never summoned on spot. 13. PW Ajit Singh stated that accused was not known to him and he was never summoned on spot. PW Ajit Singh was declared hostile and on cross-examination, he refuted the suggestion that 1 kg 300 gms of Poppy Straw was recovered in his presence from tanker No. JK05A/0306. 14. PW Shamsher Singh stated that on 07.12.2005 he received a docket in Police Station Chennai from Constable Payar Singh, whereupon he registered a case (FIR No. 107/2005) under Section 8/15 NDPS Act. 15. PW Pritam Singh stated that in December, 2005, tanker No. JK05A/0306 was stopped for checking at Domail Chennai. Poppy Straw was recovered from the cabin of the tanker. Both the accused were in the tanker at the relevant time. In cross-examination, he stated that Constable-Anil Kumar conducted the search of the tanker, that there were number of civilians on the spot and his signatures were taken on blank papers. 16. In the aforementioned background, the observations of the learned Trial Court that there was every reason for the defence to say that nobody was sure about the actual recovery is not without any basis. Witnesses were not certain as to how many samples were drawn, recovery memo mentions three samples, witness PW Qamar Din stated that 1 kg of Poppy Straw was recovered from the possession of the respondents who were in the cabin of the tanker, out of which three samples of 100 gms each were drawn for chemical examination, on the other hand, PW Rajesh Kumar who was declared hostile stated that two samples of 100 gms and 1 kg 200 gms were drawn and sealed, PW Payar Singh stated that sample of 100 gms was separated for chemical examination, PW Susheel Kumar deposed that 1 kg poppy straw was recovered and sample of 100 gms was drawn and sealed separately, PW Nazir Ahmed stated that PW Payar Singh recovered a packet of Poppy Straw weighing 1 kg 300 gms from the truck, it was divided in two parts of 100 gms and 1 kg 200 gms, however, PW Shiv Charan Gupta stated that three packets were brought to him on 10.12.2005 for resealing, he resealed the packets and issued a letter of authority Ext. P-12. In cross-examination, he stated that Ext. P-12. In cross-examination, he stated that Ext. P-1 and its carbon copy were attested by him and at the time of attestation, the space for mentioning weight of contraband was blank in the original seizure memo as well as its carbon copy. As per the report of Expert of the FSL, only one packet was received in FSL. There was no mention about other two packets. Aforementioned aspect when read in the context of the investigation during the preparation of the seizure memos leaving of space blank is enough to impeach the credibility of the investigation. 17. Apart from the same, while recovery of contraband was made on 07.12.2005, the packets were resealed on 10.12.2005 and were received in the FSL after 25 days on 03.01.2006. There is no evidence on record as to where the contraband and samples were kept during the aforementioned period nor was the Malkhana record produced to show that the contraband had been kept in safe custody till its sample was delivered in FSL nor was Malkhana incharge examined nor has any explanation been put forth for his non-examination. The same casts a serious doubt with regard to the prosecution story. It was imperative for evidence to have been brought on record to exclude the possibility of samples being tampered with. However, the prosecution has failed to do the needful. In State of J & K & Ors. v. Surinder Singh & Ors. 2014 (4) JKJ 377 [HC], a Coordinate Bench of this Court held: "It appears that the contraband was allegedly seized on 10.10.2004 and the same was received in FSL on 08.11.2004. There is no evidence on record to show where the seized contraband and samples were kept during the intervening period of one month. Prosecution has led no evidence to prove that after seizure of contraband and taking of representative samples, the same were kept in Malkhana in safe custody. In absence of link evidence it is difficult to hold that the samples examined in FSL represented the substance recovered from the accused." 18. Statement of PW Payar Singh that only packets were sealed on the spot and nothing else was done at site and that all other formalities were completed in Police Station puts another nail in the coffin of the prosecution story. Statement of PW Payar Singh that only packets were sealed on the spot and nothing else was done at site and that all other formalities were completed in Police Station puts another nail in the coffin of the prosecution story. PW Nazir, a police official stated that contraband was only weighed on the spot and rest of the investigation was conducted in the Police Station. Prosecution witnesses have also deposed that a number of civilians were present at the site of recovery, but the investigating officer conducted investigation in the Police Station and only weighed the contraband at the spot. Non-association of independent witnesses despite availability at the site of incident besides conduct of investigation in the police station speaks volumes of the shoddy investigation carried out in the case and casts a serious dent on the fairness of the conduct of the so called investigation. 19. Apart from the shoddy investigation by the police, the Chemical examiner-PW Mool Raj has not lagged behind in adopting an indifferent and casual approach in the report furnished by stating therein that the sample revealed characteristic features of the Poppy plant without giving opinion as to whether the parts of plant belonged to Papaver Somniferum or not. No test appears to have been conducted to determine the species of the plant to which the sample belonged to. Aforementioned serious lapse on the part of the expert render's the report of the chemical examiner otiose. Reference in this connection is made to the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case titled 'State of H.P. v. State of Mohan Singh', 2011 (2) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 315. Relevant extract of the same is reproduced here-under:- "10. In the present case, the relevant portion of the report of the Chemical Examiner reads as follows:- "Result of: (a) Test for meconic acid: Positive. (b) Test for morphine: Positive. (c) General observation of the chemist: I am of the opinion that all eight exhibits marked here as 206/1, 206/2, 206/3, 206/4, 206/5, 206/6, 206/7 and 206/8 contain the contents of poppy husk." It is, therefore, clear that the Chemical Examiner only found that the tests for meconic acid and morphine were positive. The Chemical Examiner has not given any opinion as to whether the parts of the plant belonged to Papaver Somniferum or not. The Chemical Examiner has not given any opinion as to whether the parts of the plant belonged to Papaver Somniferum or not. In this case, we are not inclined to call the expert and seek his opinion since the report is identical to the report of the Chemical examiner as to whether he conducted any test to determine the species of the plant. As such, this report is not binding." 20. That apart, the Chemical Examiner has not been examined as a witness, therefore, even otherwise the report furnished by PW Mool Raj is of no evidentiary value. Accordingly, the report of the Chemical Examiner, which is the very basis for the prosecution in a case under the NDPS Act, besides, the same being bereft of requisite details renders the entire edifice of the prosecution case rickety and liable to come down like a house of pack of cards, in the absence of the expert having given an opinion, which would bring the case within the four corners of the NDPS Act. In the circumstances, no conviction can be recorded in such a case and was rightly not so recorded by the learned trial Court. Apart from the aforementioned aspect of the matter, as noticed above, there are a number of serious contradictions and inconsistencies. PW Rajesh Kumar, a police official stated that recovery of the contraband was effected from the rear side of the tanker, whereas the prosecution story is that the recovery was made from the cabin of the tanker. While some witnesses have stated that only 1 kg of contraband was recovered, other stated that 1 kg 300 gms was recovered. There is contradiction amongst the prosecution witnesses even with regard to the number of samples prepared. While PW Rajesh Kumar stated that only two packets were prepared, Seizure memo Ext. P-1 reveals that there were three packets of 100 gms each, while PW Payar Singh says that only one sample of 100 gms was drawn, PW Qamar Din says that three samples were prepared for FSL and that only 1 kg of poppy straw was recovered, space in seizure memos for weight of contraband was left blank, therefore, it is apparent that the witnesses were not sure as to what was recovered and what was recorded in the seizure memos. Likewise, PW Payar Singh stated that he made the recovery and the same was fortified by PW Rajesh Kumar. PW Susheel Kumar, on the other hand, says that the vehicle was searched by PW Qamar Din, while PW Pritam Singh says that it was only Anil Kumar who went inside the cabin for the purpose of search and further that he was made to sign blank papers. Thus, the investigation of the case in a slip-shod and shoddy manner has turned the prosecution case into a mess. The only independent witness, PW Ajit Singh associated with the investigation turned hostile. As per stand of the prosecution, the seal after being used was handed over to him, but he did not support the police version thus nothing is known about the seal used. So much so that even FSL form was also not prepared. The same is an important requirement of law as per decision of this Court in case titled as 'Sudershan Bakaya & Anr. v. State' 2011 (1) JKJ 751 [HC] wherein it has been held that non-compliance of the requirement of filling of FSL Form at the time of recovery is a serious infirmity in the case as it violates the safeguard provided to accused against false implication. To cap it all, the investigating officer did not bother to enter the witness box. The same when viewed in the context of the serious lapses committed in the investigation, leave no iota of doubt that the prosecution case must fail. 21. Accordingly, we find that the acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court does not warrant any interference. We also record our concern about the manner in which appeals are being filed mechanically. Although, it is a fit case for imposition of exemplary costs for filing of appeal mechanically, yet we refrain from doing so and expect that in future appeals are filed only after due application of mind by recording a satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor who conducted the case before the trial Court as well as by the authority sanctioning filing of the appeal that it is a fit case for filing of appeal. In the circumstances, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. However, in view of the reasons as recorded above, no order as to costs.