JUDGMENT : The appellant/Naresh Ram has been convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for both the offences by judgment and order dated 29th of March, 2017, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah at West Champaran in Trial No. 63 of 2011, arising out of Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 42 of 2011. 2. The appellant is said to have been in possession of 98 Kgs of Ganja which was recovered from beneath the sugarcane field and was found in seven packets each containing 14 kgs of Ganja. 3. The informant of this case viz. Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar Dwivedi lodged a self-statement on 01.03.2011 alleging that while on duty on the same day, he received confidential information that smugglers have congregated in a sugarcane field and have concealed a huge consignment of narcotics in that sugarcane field. On such information, the superior Police Officer was informed about the occurrence and a raid was conducted by him. On reaching the place which was indicated to him in the secret information, he along with the Police Party found that about 9-10 persons, who had assembled there, started fleeing away on seeing the Police vehicle. One of such person was nabbed who disclosed his name as that of the appellant. He could not disclose the name of the other associates/persons who managed to run away. 4. On his pointing, the sugarcane field was dug-up and 98 Kgs of narcotic was recovered which was found to be kept in seven packets, each containing 14 Kgs of narcotics. The appellant was arrested. A seizure list was prepared in front of two independent witnesses. On the basis of the aforesaid self-statement of the informant, a case vide Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 42 of 2011 dated 01.03.2011 was registered for investigation under Sections 20, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 5. The police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was tried. 6. Only two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution viz. 5. The police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was tried. 6. Only two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution viz. the informant and one of the members of the raiding team and only on the aforesaid materials, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, leaned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case even in a small measure. The Trial Court has mechanically convicted and sentenced the appellant without application of mind and without even looking at the fact that none of the essential/mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 had been complied with while prosecuting the appellant. 8. From the records, it appears that when secret information was received by the P.W. 1/informant, it was not reduced in writing and sent to the superior Police Officer as mandated under Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The informant has only casually stated in the written report as also in his deposition before the Trial Court that raid was conducted only after intimating the superior Police Officer. What information was provided, is not known. 9. That apart, there is nothing on record to ascertain as to how the narcotic was weighed at the spot. There is no reference of weighing of the narcotics. The samples were never drawn from the seized packets at the time of seizure. The witnesses before whom search and seizure was conducted have also not been examined and no explanation whatsoever has been offered on behalf of the prosecution in that regard. 10. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to rely upon the deposition of P.Ws 1 and 2 that the narcotic was seized from the possession of the appellant. 11. Though nothing has been stated by the aforesaid witnesses but no material even is available on record to ascertain as to where was the consignment of narcotic, which was seized in the operation, kept in the interregnum. 12. All that can be gathered from the materials on record is that the sample was sent to the F.S.L for forensic examination of narcotics on 03.09.2011 i.e. after about six months of the seizure. The samples were received in the F.S.L. on 24.10.2011. 12. All that can be gathered from the materials on record is that the sample was sent to the F.S.L for forensic examination of narcotics on 03.09.2011 i.e. after about six months of the seizure. The samples were received in the F.S.L. on 24.10.2011. The F.S.L. report (Ext-6) also does not indicate as to the mode in which the parcel was found to be packed on receipt or the description of the seal. The report only indicates that the sample was Ganja which contained Tetra Hydro Cannabinol as its chief intoxicating ingredient which sample from which the consignment was tested to be Ganja is not known. 13. In the absence of these connecting links, the Trial Court did not have any material before it for convicting and sentencing the appellant. 14. A Quaint logic has been pressed by the Appellate Court in convicting the appellant viz. that the appellant hails from Gopalganj and if he was found in the sugarcane field from where narcotics was recovered in Bettiah, it could only be presupposed that he was involved in transportation of the aforesaid narcotics. This logic is absolutely untenable and not in consonance with the accepted cannons of appreciating the evidence and returning the verdict of guilt. 15. I must say, a very apathetic approach has been adopted/displayed by the learned Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 16. This Court is absolutely pained and aghast to know that the appellant has remained in jail since 03.03.2011 in a case of this kind. 17. Finding no material/evidence to justify the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the appeal is allowed. 18. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Trial No. 63 of 2011, arising out of Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 42 of 2011 is set aside. 19. Since the appellant is in jail. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 20. Let a copy of the judgment be handed over to the Superintendent of Jail for compliance and needful action.