JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) preferred against the judgment and order, dated 31.03.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati in NDPS Case No. 87/2017, whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 6 (six) months, under Section 21(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘N.D.P.S. Act’). APPELLANT’S CASE: 3. The appellant’s case, precisely, is that one S.I. Biswajit Rabha of Guwahati G.R.P.S., lodged an F.I.R., on 20.06.2017, with the Officer in-Charge of Guwahati G.R.P.S. alleging, that on 20.06.2017 at about 9:30 PM, the train checking party comprised of ASI Shranan Kumar Jha along with GRP and CRPF personnel, in course of checking the Coach No. B/1 of train No. 12526 Dn. Indrani Express, while standing at Guwahati Railway Station platform No. 5, recovered 2 (two) packets of suspected Morphine from a passenger of seat No. 49 kept in a black colour trolley bag packed with yellow colour polythene. The said passenger was detained at the platform No. 5 of Guwahati Railway Station. On receipt of the Authority Letter under Section 41(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act from the Inspector Officer in-Charge, Guwahati G.R.P.S., he visited the place of occurrence and on search in the trolley bag, recovered the aforesaid suspected two Morphine packets. On enquiry, the appellant disclosed his identity and stated to have purchased the said suspected morphine at Dimapur, Nagaland from a woman for Rs. 3,40,000/- only. The appellant further stated that he carried the said suspected morphine to Kolkata for commercial purpose. On weighing, in presence of the witnesses, it was found that each of the 2 (two) packets contained ½ (half) KG of Morphine, total 1(one) KG. The Morphine was seized and samples of the seized substance were drawn at the place of occurrence, in presence of the appellant and witnesses for examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘F.S.L.’). On weighing, in presence of the witnesses, it was found that each of the 2 (two) packets contained ½ (half) KG of Morphine, total 1(one) KG. The Morphine was seized and samples of the seized substance were drawn at the place of occurrence, in presence of the appellant and witnesses for examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘F.S.L.’). Thereafter, the authorized officer arrested the appellant under Section 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act and handed over him to Guwahati G.R.P.S. INVESTIGATION, TRIAL AND CONVICTION: 4. Based on the above FIR, Guwahati G.R.P.S. Case No. 105/2017 under Section 21 (C) of the NDPS Act was registered and the Officer-in-Charge, Inspector Pankaj Kalita endorsed the case to WSI Binu Hazarika for completing the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Charge-Sheet against the appellant under Section 21 (C) of the NDPS Act. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, upon hearing of both the sides and appreciation of materials on record, having found ground to presume that the appellant committed an offence as charge-sheeted, framed charge accordingly vide order, dated 21.09.2017. The appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses and the learned trial Court examined one Court witness. The appellant cross-examined them at length. After closing the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and declined to examine any witness in defence vide order, dated 03.04.2018. Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 5. The appellant, by preferring the instant appeal, has assailed the above judgment and order of conviction, inter-alia, on the grounds that the learned trial Court has erred in law as well as in facts, while passing the impugned judgment inasmuch as, the entire conviction is based on surmises and conjectures and further, inferences have been drawn from uncorroborated testimony. The appellant has stated that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that no evidence was tendered by any independent witness despite availability at the alleged place of occurrence which was a railway platform and miserably failed to appreciate the fact that there were gross procedural lapses while conducting the investigation, which vitiated the entire case. EVIDENCE: 6. The appellant has stated that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that no evidence was tendered by any independent witness despite availability at the alleged place of occurrence which was a railway platform and miserably failed to appreciate the fact that there were gross procedural lapses while conducting the investigation, which vitiated the entire case. EVIDENCE: 6. Before appreciating the various aspects of the case, let us have a brief look at the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the case. 7. P.W.-1, Const. Suren Haloi of Guwahati G.R.P.S., inter-alia, deposed that on 20.06.2017, he was detailed for train checking duty from 5 PM to 10 PM at Guwahati Railway Station. ASI Shranan Kumar Jha (P.W.-7) was the In-Charge of the train checking party and there were other 6/7 constables in the said party. At about 9.15 pm, Dn. Indrani Express which was bound for Kolkata arrived at the platform No. 5. In course of checking in AC 3 tier Coach No. B-1, they noticed one trolley bag of black colour under Seat No. 49, where one person was found sitting. On asking, the said person claimed to be the owner of the said trolley bag. 8. P.W.-2 Biswajit Rabha, who is the SI of Police at Guwahati GRPS, inter alia, deposed that at about 09.30 PM, he received a telephonic call from ASI Shranan Kumar Jha, stating to the effect that a trolley bag with suspected morphine was recovered from a passenger of Dn. Indrani Express and after receiving the information, the same was reduced to writing vide, Guwahati GRPS GDE No. 654, dated 20.06.2017. Suspecting the contraband to be morphine, he took weight of the same, by the weighing instrument and found each packet containing 500 gms i.e. total 1 (one)Kg of suspected morphine. Thereafter, he prepared 2(two) samples, one original and other a duplicate. After preparation of the sample packets, he took signature of the witnesses and that of the accused thereon and he also put signature. 9. P.W.-3, ASI Umesh Kumar Singh of CRPF deposed that he along with one constable of the CRPF was on patrolling duty at Guwahati Railway Platforms and they noticed GRPS personnel conducting checking in B-1 compartment of the said train and found one trolley bag containing two packets of morphine. 10. P.W.-4 Const. Mantu Saharia of the CRPF deposed that he along with ASI Umesh Kr. 10. P.W.-4 Const. Mantu Saharia of the CRPF deposed that he along with ASI Umesh Kr. Singh was on patrolling duty at the platforms of Guwahati Railway Station and they brought down one person with a black colour trolley bag and found therein two suspected packets of Morphine. 11. P.W.-5 WSI Binu Hazarika of Guwahati GRPS deposed that on that day, Officer-in-Charge of Guwahati GRPS, received a written information from SI Biswajit Rabha and after registering the same as Guwahati GRPS Case No.105/17 u/s 21 (C) of the NDPS Act, endorsed the same to her for completing the investigation. On being endorsed the case, she recorded the statement of SI Biswajit Rabha, who was the informant of the case. Thereafter, the accused was medically examined and was also produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. She forwarded the sample to FSL, Assam at Kahilipara for chemical examination. The FSL reported that the sample gave positive test for morphine. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the accused/appellant Swapan Mazumdar, u/s 21 (C) of the NDPS Act. 12. P.W.-6 Gajendra Nath Deka, the then Joint Director, FSL, Assam, inter alia, deposed that on 22.06.2017, he received a parcel through the Director, FSL, Assam in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 105/2017 for examination. He further deposed that the said parcel consisted of one exhibit enclosed in a sealed envelope and the facsimile of the seal was found to be ‘GHTYGRPS’. On examination of the sample as per United Nations Drug Testing Laboratory Manual found the sample giving positive test for morphine and percentage of morphine was found to be 62.5% vide Ext.8, the report and Ext.-4, the forwarding report. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not report as to whether the polythene packet was sealed or not, but it was heat sealed and did not verify the presence of any signature on the closed polythene packet inside the envelope containing the sample. He has not seen the remnant of the sample in the court. 13. P.W.-7, ASI Shranan Kumar Jha was the In-charge of the train checking party. He, inter alia, deposed that on 20.06.2017, he accompanied by Const. Suren Haloi and 6/7 other Constables was performing train checking duty from 6.00 AM to 10.00 PM and at about 9.15 PM, Dn. Indrani Express arrived at the platform No.5 of Guwahati Railway Station. 13. P.W.-7, ASI Shranan Kumar Jha was the In-charge of the train checking party. He, inter alia, deposed that on 20.06.2017, he accompanied by Const. Suren Haloi and 6/7 other Constables was performing train checking duty from 6.00 AM to 10.00 PM and at about 9.15 PM, Dn. Indrani Express arrived at the platform No.5 of Guwahati Railway Station. The train was bound for Kolkata. While they were checking the Coach No. B-1 of AC 3 tier, Const. Suren Haloi detected some suspected items in a black colour trolley bag under the seat No. 49 and called him there. Accordingly, he went there and found that under seat No. 49, there was a black colour trolley bag containing 2 (two) packets of suspected morphine powder. Const. Suren Haloi told him that the accused claimed to be the owner of the bag and he himself opened it. The appellant was sitting there. He forthwith passed the information to the Officer-in-Charge, Guwahati GRPS, over phone. After that SI Biswajit Rabha arrived there under the instructions of the Officer-in-Charge, Guwahati GRPS. As by that time, the train was leaving the station, they brought down the accused appellant along with the said bag to the platform. SI Biswajit Rabha checked the bag himself and brought out the packets of suspected contraband. SI Biswajit Rabha brought the weighing balance of their office and weighted both the packets. It was found that each of the two packets contained ½(half) KG of suspected morphine and accordingly seized the said packets and the trolley bag including other articles. He put signature in the seizure memo vide Ext.-1. SI Biswajit Rabha took samples of the seized suspected contraband and after mixing the sample, he prepared two sample packets, sealed the same and obtained his signature on the envelope. He recognized M.Ext.-1, the duplicate sample and M.Ext.-2, the black colour trolley bag containing two packets of morphine. Thereafter, the accused appellant along with the seized materials was taken to the Guwahati GRPS. In cross-examination, P.W.-7, inter alia, deposed that no copy of duty register was available in the Court. There was movement of passengers and they saw the detection of the contraband as the train was leaving, they could not get chance to get their names and addresses. M.Ext.-2 was in un-sealed condition. His signature was not obtained on M.Ext-2. In cross-examination, P.W.-7, inter alia, deposed that no copy of duty register was available in the Court. There was movement of passengers and they saw the detection of the contraband as the train was leaving, they could not get chance to get their names and addresses. M.Ext.-2 was in un-sealed condition. His signature was not obtained on M.Ext-2. He denied the defence suggestion that since the bag was not belonged to the accused appellant, his signature was not obtained. 14. C.W.-1, Sheristadar Debendra Nath Talukdar was the In-charge of Malkhana of Guwahati GRPS. He, inter alia, deposed that on 20.06.2017, SI Biswajit Rabha deposited one black colour trolley bag containing two packets of suspected morphine with him. The packets were wrapped with yellow colour polythene and two samples of the seized morphine. He kept those materials in the Malkhana of the Guwahati GRPS, against MR.No.71/17. The sample packets were kept in a separate box under lock and key and the keys of the box retained with him. No other person, save and except him, had excess to either the Malkhana or to the box. He recognized Ext. ’X’, the Malkhana register of Guwahati GRPS, w.e.f. 01.01.2014(proved in original). He recognized Ext.’X’ (1), the relevant page of the register(proved in original). He also recognized Ext. ‘X’ (2), the relevant entry(proved in original) and Ext.’X’ (3), the signature of the Officer-in-Charge, Pankaj Kalita. In cross-examination, he, inter alia, deposed that he did not put separately the date of receipt of the articles in the Malkhana. He did not make any entry in the Malkhana register regarding time of taking out of articles for production before the Court. In Malkhana register, he did not put any signature as the Officer-in-Charge only put his signature. He denied the defence suggestion that Ext. ‘X’ is not conclusive. ARGUMENTS: 15. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the conviction of the appellant is bad in law for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 52A, 52, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. Mr. Biswas, further, submitted that the learned trial Court while convicting the accused appellant miserably failed to appreciate that the place of detection of contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act was itself disputed/contradicted so far the platform number is concerned. The learned trial Court, Mr. Mr. Biswas, further, submitted that the learned trial Court while convicting the accused appellant miserably failed to appreciate that the place of detection of contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act was itself disputed/contradicted so far the platform number is concerned. The learned trial Court, Mr. Biswas submitted, ignored the procedural lapses committed during the search and seizure of the contraband as well as drawing of the samples thereof for chemical test. Mr. Biswas also questioned as to how the Guwahati GRPS identified the appellant as a train passenger, who carried Morphine, a narcotic drugs, when no railway ticket was seized out of his possession or no reservation seat of the coach of the train was seized from the railway department or statement of any co-passenger was recorded. Mr. Biswas submitted that the police admittedly did not request the two ladies, who were present at the relevant time at the coach to stand as independent witness in the case, nor any shopkeeper available at the platform was examined. According to Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellant, the train checking party did not find the appellant holding the bag in question containing the seized Morphine, but under the seat on which he was allegedly sitting, where the other co-passengers also kept their luggage indicating that the place had excess to other passengers. Mr. Biswas submitted that the appellant’s alleged claim of ownership over the bag before the police personnel is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, Mr. Biswas submitted that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offence, which the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Biswas in support of his argument, relied upon the judgments rendered by a Division Bench of this court in Suraj Gupta & Ors., Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2013 (5) GLT 319; the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 222 and Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 513 . 16. Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent, reiterated the general facts of the case and submitted that the investigating agency failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, as submitted by Mr. State of Gujarat, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 513 . 16. Mr. T. K. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent, reiterated the general facts of the case and submitted that the investigating agency failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, as submitted by Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellant, although there is abundance of incriminating intrinsic and cogent evidence against the appellant’s carriage of contraband Morphine by train. PRESUMPTION OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATE: SECTION 35 OF THE NDPS ACT. 17. Be it mentioned here that Section 35 of the NDPS Act provides that in any prosecution under the said Act, the existence of culpable mental state shall be presumed, which, of course, can be rebutted by the accused. In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the burden of proof cast on the accused under Section 35 can be discharged through different modes. One is that, he can rely on the materials available in the prosecution evidence. Next is, in addition to that he can elicit answers from prosecution witnesses through cross-examination to dispel any such doubt. He can also adduce other evidence, when he is called upon to enter on his defence. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE: 18. It needs to be borne in mind that in Krishan Chand Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 502 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is a settled cannon of criminal jurisprudence that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favoring the accused, compliance therewith should be strictly construed. The Court held that as already held in the constitution Bench in Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja, the theory of “substantial compliance” would not be applicable, particularly where the punishment provided is very harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudice against the suspect. The safeguard cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be construed in its proper perspective, compliance therewith must be ensured. In the said case it was further held that the harsher is the punishment, the more is the strictness of proof required from the prosecution and that failing to associate independent witnesses at the time of recovery created a dent in the case of prosecution. 19. In the said case it was further held that the harsher is the punishment, the more is the strictness of proof required from the prosecution and that failing to associate independent witnesses at the time of recovery created a dent in the case of prosecution. 19. Perusal of the FIR, dated 20.06.2017, vide Ext.5 reveals, inter-alia, that the recovery of a black colour trolley bag was found under the seat No. 49 of Coach No. B-1 of train No. 12526 Dn. Indrani Express, which arrived at platform No. 5 of Guwahati Railway station at about 09.30 pm. On the said seat one passenger was found sitting. The recovery was made by the train checking party headed by P.W-7, ASI Shranan Kumar Jha and comprised of GRP and CRPF personnel. The said passenger was detained at the Platform No. 3 of Guwahati Railway Station and on search in the bag, it was found that it contained 2 (two) polythene packets containing suspected morphine. The aforesaid recovery followed necessary observation of procedures required under Sections 41 (2) to 43 of the NDPS Act, which are discussed in appropriate places. 20. P.W-7 ASI Shranan Kumar Jha, who, as a whole, supported the contentions made in the FIR, disclosed in evidence that PW-1 Const. Suren Haloi detected the bag containing suspected morphine under Seat No. 49 of Coach No. B-1, which was an AC-3 tier coach, in platform No. 5 of Guwahati Railway Station, where at about 9.15 pm, Kolkata bound Dn. Indrani Express arrived. After detection of the suspected commission of the offence under the NDPS Act, he, who was heading the checking party, was called to the coach and found the bag as was where it was and the appellant passenger was sitting on seat No. 49. According to PW-7, on enquiry by P.W-1 as to whom the bag belonged, the appellant claimed to be the owner. PW-7, thereafter, informed forthwith about the said recovery of suspected contraband to the Officer-in-Charge, Guwahati G.R.P.S., namely, Inspector Pankaj Kalita, who was not examined in the case. P.W-1 Const. Suren Haloi, P.W-3 ASI Umesh Kumar Singh of C.R.P.F. and P.W-4 Const. Mantu Saharia of C.R.P.F., who were members of the train checking party, as a whole, corroborated the evidence of P.W-7. P.W-1 Const. Suren Haloi, P.W-3 ASI Umesh Kumar Singh of C.R.P.F. and P.W-4 Const. Mantu Saharia of C.R.P.F., who were members of the train checking party, as a whole, corroborated the evidence of P.W-7. P.W-1 specifically corroborated the evidence of P.W-7, deposing that he detected the appellant, who was travelling in seat No. 49 of 3 tier coach No. B/1 with one trolley bag under his seat of which he claimed to be the owner, in Dn. Indrani Express, at the platform No. 5 of Guwahati Railway Station. The cross-examination of P.W-1 further reveals that there were two ladies, before the presence of the accused, but he did not obtain their particulars as to their identity and as such, the said two mysterious lady passengers remained unexamined in the case. Thus, their (P.Ws 1, 3, 4 and 7) evidence clearly reveal that the aforesaid detection of alleged contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act was detected in the platform No. 5 of Guwahati Railway Station and the appellant was brought down from the coach to the platform for further search and interrogation. It is, however, noticed from the evidence of P.Ws-1 & 7 that the detailment order register for train checking duty of P.Ws-1 & 7 and other personnel aforementioned, on 20.06.2017, at Guwahati Railway Station was not exhibited in the case, which was the preliminary foundation of the whole prosecution case as it was necessary to establish that they were on duty at the platform No. 5 at the relevant time, in view of contest being made by the defence in this regard. 21. The evidence clearly shows that the train checking party of Guwahati GRPS consisted of non-gazetted police officer and staff and after P.W-1, Const. Suren Harloi detected commission of the offence under the NDPS Act, he reported the matter to P.W-7, ASI Shranan Kumar Jha, the In-Charge of the train checking party, who, in turn, forthwith informed the Inspector, Officer-in-Charge, of Guwahati GRPS and thereupon, P.W-2, SI Biswajit Rabha was authorized to take necessary action. The said information was reduced to writing vide Ext. 2, the extract copy of the G. D. Entry No. 654, dated 20.06.2017, at 09.30 PM and Ext. 3, the Authority Letter. The said information was reduced to writing vide Ext. 2, the extract copy of the G. D. Entry No. 654, dated 20.06.2017, at 09.30 PM and Ext. 3, the Authority Letter. Here it needs to be mentioned that Section 41 (2) of the NDPS Act requires authorization if the search is conducted by an officer subordinate to a gazetted Officer, which is satisfied in this case and as the search was conducted by P.W-2, the authorised Officer, the provisions contained in Section 43 of the said Act are applicable. 22. Perusal of the Ext. 2, the G. D. Entry and Ext. 3, the Authority Letter show that the place of occurrence was reported to be the platform No. 3 of Guwahati Railway Station, but P.W-1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 stated that the place of occurrence was the platform No. 5 and the seizure memo vide Ext. 1 shows it to be the platform No. ‘5’, which is over-written and one of the signatories to the seizure memo has shown the platform No. ‘3’ as the place of seizure. This signatory witness was kept out of the witness box. On the other hand, Ext. 4, the sketch map of the place of occurrence, shows that Dn. Indrani Express was on the platform No. 5 side with a common platform for the platform Nos. 4 and 5. According to P.W-5, WSI Binu Hazarika, the investigating officer, the approach roads for the common platform Nos. 2 and 3 and the common platform Nos. 4 and 5 are different, meaning thereby that one cannot move to the platform Nos. 3 and 5 without passing through the separate common approach road. The prosecution did not examine the Inspector, Officer-in-Charge of Guwahati GRPS, without explaining the reason and as such the confusion created regarding the place of occurrence with reference to Exts. 2 and 3, aforementioned, to that of the other evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, remained unsolved and the very foundation of the prosecution case also thereby shaken. 23. Turning to the search, seizure of the contraband and arrest of the appellant, it needs to be mentioned that in the backdrop of fact of alleged recovery of the contraband, it is not necessary to follow the conditions incorporated in Section 42, because the search was made at a ‘public place’ under the circumstances mentioned in Section 43 of the NDPS Act. In Balbir Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act, which deal with the steps to be taken by the officer after making arrest or seizure obtaining of signatures are mandatory in character. What it appears in the instant case is that in course of performing the train checking duty, P.W.-1, Const. Suren Haloi initially detected the appellant, who was sitting at the relevant time on Seat No. 49 of coach No. B-1, carrying a trolley bag under his seat and on suspicion, when asked to open, the appellant opened the bag for his inspection and noticed that it contained two packets of suspected morphine as well as after him (P.W.-1), on his information, inspected thoroughly by the checking party in-charge P.W.-7, ASI Shranan Kumar Jha, after the appellant was brought down from the coach to the platform No. 5 as by that time, the train was leaving. According to the P.Ws-1, 2, 4 and 7, P.W-2, SI Biswajit Rabha, the authorized officer, made a fresh search in the bag of the appellant, who had already been brought down from the coach to the platform and having found packets of suspected morphine and before effecting seizure, weighing was done. 24. On weighing by weighing instrument, P.W-2 found each packet containing 500 grams, that is, total 1 kg of suspected morphine in two packets. P.W-3, ASI Umesh Kumar Singh and P.W-4, Const. Mantu Saharia of CRPF, stated that during that period of search and seizure, people gathered at the place of the platform and they disbursed those gathered people from the place, meaning thereby that the weighing and seizure process was done in presence of the public available at the platform. It is noticed that the Weighing scale which was used in weighing the contraband was not seized and exhibited in the case to test the scale’s accuracy nor examined any independent seizure witness available at the spot in the relevant period of seizure process such as passengers, shop keepers, railway employees etc., without explaining any reason. Therefore, it appears that PW. Therefore, it appears that PW. 2, the authorized officer, conducted the search in a very casual manner, without calling any independent witness although available at the public place, which is the premier railway station of the north eastern region of India, where is round the clock movement of thousands of passengers, shop-keepers and railway employees, definitely creates a doubt as to the recovery of the seized suspected drug substance from the appellant as it is not a case where recovery of contraband was made at a place to which pubic in general had no excess. 25. On close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.-2, SI Biswajit Rabha, the authorized officer, it transpires that he prepared 2 (two) samples-1 (one) original and 1 (one) duplicate, taking out 5 grams of suspected morphine from each of the packets for two samples, sealed those samples in presence of witnesses, the appellant obtained signatures thereon and further, prepared the seizure memo vide Ext. 1. P.Ws-1 and 7, the police personnel, corroborated the evidence of PW. 2 recognizing M.Ext. 1, the duplicate sample and M.Ext. 2 the black colour trolley bag, out of which the contraband morphine was recovered and seized. Surprisingly, however, P.Ws-1 and 2 admitted that no signature of any witness and the accused was obtained over the materials vide Ext. 2 (1) and Ext. 2 (2) as well as over the seized bag vide Ext. 2. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W-7, ASI Shranan Kumar Jha, the in-charge of the train checking party unequivocally stated that P.W-2, the authorized officer, took sample of the suspected contraband from both the packets and after mixing it, he prepared 2 (two) samples, sealed the same and obtained his signature on the envelope. There is no evidence to show that any copy of the seizure memo. was furnished to the appellant, which was desirable, but it does not vitiate the prosecution case as Section 43 (b) of the NDPS Act is silent with regard to this aspect. 26. It needs to be mentioned that a fair procedure for drawing samples requires that samples of contraband substance must be drawn on the spot of recovery in presence of search witnesses and the person out of whose possession recovered and their signatures must be obtained on such drawn samples for chemical test. 26. It needs to be mentioned that a fair procedure for drawing samples requires that samples of contraband substance must be drawn on the spot of recovery in presence of search witnesses and the person out of whose possession recovered and their signatures must be obtained on such drawn samples for chemical test. The sample of seized contraband substance should be drawn in duplicate, each should be of 5 grams, except in the cases of opium, ganja and charas/hasish, which is to be well mixed to make it homogeneous before the representative sample in duplicate is drawn from each packet seized and properly sealed and signed thereon by the witnesses and the accused to avoid giving any opportunity to tamper or substitution of the contraband substance allegedly seized from the accused. In the case in hand, as discussed in the foregoing paragraph, no signature of the seizure witnesses and of that of the appellant was obtained on the seals of the samples drawn and the specimen of such seal affixed to the samples was exhibited to the learned magistrate, before whom the appellant was produced along with the seized articles, which was affixed on the single sample packet forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) for chemical examination by P.W-5 SI Binu Hazarika, the investigating officer, although seized items and the sample packets were produced. Here, it is apposite to look at the evidence of P.W-6, Gajendra Nath Deka, Joint Director, FSL, Assam, who on receipt of 1 (one) sealed sample of exhibit containing 5 grams of substance, enclosed in a sealed envelope, through the Director, F.S.L., Assam, with facsimile of seal to be ‘GHTYGRPS’, examined the same as per the United Nations Drug Testing Laboratory Manual. On chemical examination, PW-6 found the sample giving positive test for morphine containing 62.5% vide Ext. 8, the report and Ext. 9, the forwarding report. But cross-examination reveals that the sample was sealed with heat seal and could not say whether there was any signature thereon and further, that the remnant of the said sample was not shown to him. Perusal of Ext. 9, the forwarding report, however, shows that after chemical examination, the sample exhibit was sent back to the Officer-in-Charge, Guwahati GRPS, but the same was not exhibited to him for confirmation. Perusal of Ext. 9, the forwarding report, however, shows that after chemical examination, the sample exhibit was sent back to the Officer-in-Charge, Guwahati GRPS, but the same was not exhibited to him for confirmation. Thus, when seizure procedure was not observed in accordance with law and so also the sample drawn procedure as discussed above, the same cannot be believed beyond reasonable doubt. The place of seizure is also apparently doubtful in this case. Therefore, the whole prosecution case is surrounded by confusions casting serious doubt on it. 27. Section 55 of the NDPS Act requires the Officer-in-Charge of a police station to take charge and keep in safe custody all seized articles under this Act, within the jurisdiction of the police station and to affix seal on such articles or to take samples thereof and all samples so taken shall be sealed with a seal of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. According to P.W-2, S.I. Biswajit Rabha, the authorized officer, he did not mention in the FIR that the seized contraband and the samples thereof were deposited with the Officer-in-Charge of Guwahati GRPS. Perusal of the evidence of P.W-5, WSI Binu Hazarika, the Investigating Officer, she forwarded the sample of the seized contraband to the FSL, on 22.06.2017, after taking delivery of the same from the Malkhana, where it was kept in safe custody, but she did not submit the copy of the Malkhana register to show that she withdrew the sample packet from the Malkhana to hand-over to the messenger for delivery at the FSL. In this regard, the learned trial Court examined C.W.-1, ASI Debendra Nath Talukdar, the In-charge of Malkhana of Guwahati GRPS. His evidence shows that the trolley bag containing two packets of suspected Morphine and two samples were deposited with him by P.W.-2, the authorized officer, which he kept in the Malkhana vide MR. No.71/17, to which except him no other person had excess. He recognized Ext.’X’, the relevant Malkhana register of Guwahati GRPS w.e.f. 01.01.2014, Ext.’X’ (1) is the relevant page and Ext.’X’ (2) as well as Ext.’X’ (3), the signature of the Officer-in-Charge, Inspector Pankaj Kalita. His cross-examination reveals that he did not enter the date of receipt of the articles in the Malkhana and did not make any entry of the samples in the Malkhana register. His cross-examination reveals that he did not enter the date of receipt of the articles in the Malkhana and did not make any entry of the samples in the Malkhana register. He did not even make any entry of the date and time in the Malkhana register showing when the articles were taken out of the Malkhana for production before the Magistrate and when the sample was forwarded to the FSL. He did not even put his signature in the Malkhana register, but it was the Officer-in-Charge, who put his signatures, but he was not even examined in the case. The record shows that no relevant GD entry showing entry of the seized materials including the sample packets in the Malkhana of Guwahati GRPS was exhibited. Admittedly, there is no signature of C.W.-1 in the Malkhana register as in-charge of the Malkhana, who allegedly retained the seized materials in safe custody. The totality of evidence thus show that there was no sufficient and satisfactory compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act to rule out the possibility of tampering of the seized materials till sample was forwarded to the FSL for chemical examination beyond reasonable doubt. The duplicate sample was also not exhibited during trial of the case for identification by P.W.-5, the expert, who examined the sample and by P.Ws-2, 5 and C.W.-1, the authorized officer, the investigating officer and the Malkhana In-charge respectively. 28. The above inference is further reinforced by admitted non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act. Section 57 of the NDPS Act requires an officer to report within 48 hours of every arrest and seizure to his immediate superior, giving in detail all particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior, right from the time of receiving the information of possession of contraband substance and thereafter, progress made at each stage of the case, so as to ensure against fabrication of a false case. P.W-2, SI Biswajit Rabha, the authorized officer, admitted in cross-examination that he did not submit any separate report as per Section 57 of the NDPS Act, except filing of an FIR to his superior officer. On the other hand, the evidence does not show that any copy of the G.D. Entry vide Ext. P.W-2, SI Biswajit Rabha, the authorized officer, admitted in cross-examination that he did not submit any separate report as per Section 57 of the NDPS Act, except filing of an FIR to his superior officer. On the other hand, the evidence does not show that any copy of the G.D. Entry vide Ext. 2 was forwarded by the Officer-in-Charge, Guwahati G.R.P.S., who was not even examined in the case, to his superior officer as required under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. 29. So far the question of arrest of the appellant along with the bag containing the packets of morphine is concerned, it is the consistent case of the prosecution that at the relevant time, he was travelling in Coach No.B-1, Seat No. 49 of A.C. 3-tier of train No.12526 Dn. Indrani Express, but neither any train ticket from him nor reservation chart of the said coach from the railway was seized or evidence adduced to show that he was an unauthorized passenger of the said train. No co-passenger of the appellant was also examined despite availability to find some credibility in the prosecution contention that the appellant was the only passenger in the coach, who carried the bag containing the contraband narcotic substance Morphine. The confusion is further aggravated by P.W-1, who stated in cross-examination that before the appellant, there were two other ladies, but he did not even ask their names. On the other hand, as stated above, the platform of Guwahati railway station, to which the appellant was brought down from the train is also evidently contradictory. This material infirmities raise a doubt as to whether the appellant was, in fact, a passenger in the said train and he carried the bag containing the narcotic drug Morphine. The mere evidence of the Police personnel that on asking as to who was the owner of the bag to which the appellant replied in the affirmative is a piece of inadmissible evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 30. Thus, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Trilok Chand, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 342 , going by the number of discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with inconsistency and contradictions that emerged from the evidences, the entire prosecution story vitiates and leads for discrediting its version. 30. Thus, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Trilok Chand, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 342 , going by the number of discrepancies in the prosecution case coupled with inconsistency and contradictions that emerged from the evidences, the entire prosecution story vitiates and leads for discrediting its version. In the case of Suraj Gupta(supra), a Division Bench of this Court observed that no conviction can be founded on the basis of intrinsically and inherently unreliable evidence. From the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof in such a manner as to rebut the presumption envisaged in Section 35 of NDPS Act. CONCLUDING REMARK: 31. For the reasons, set forth above, the appeal is allowed. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act and set at liberty by way of setting aside the impugned judgment and order. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order. Issue release order forthwith.