JUDGMENT : P.G. M PATIL, J. 1. The appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/21.09.2016 passed by the Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Case (NDPS) No.36/2016 (Split up Case from Special Case (NDPS) No.41/2013) has filed this appeal. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial court has convicted appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and in default to pay fine amount, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court. 4. The appellant was tried by the Trial Court on the charge of commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Gandhi Gunj Police in Crime No.158/2013 of their police station. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows: On 10.09.2013 at 3.00 p.m. PW.9 the Circle Inspector of Police, Bidar received credible information of illegal transportation of ganja. Thereafter, himself along with panchas and his staff conducted raid on auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-38/2010 which was parked near New Adarsh Colony on Chidri Ring Road and apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3. On search of auto rickshaw, two gunny bags containing ganja were found. On informing accused Nos.1 to 3 about their right of being searched in the presence of Magistrate/Gazetted Officer, with their consent conducted their personal search. He secured witness with weighing scale. The ganja found in the first bag weighed 9kg and in the second bag weighed 12 kg. On drawing sample from each of them, the Police Officer seized the samples, ganja and the auto-rickshaw under the Mahazar Ex.P1. Then he returned to the police station along with seized articles and the accused, produced them before SHO along with his report. On the basis of such report, SHO registered FIR Ex.P3, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 6. Then he returned to the police station along with seized articles and the accused, produced them before SHO along with his report. On the basis of such report, SHO registered FIR Ex.P3, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 6. The appellant-accused herein who was arrayed as accused No.2 in the original proceedings remained absconding and thereafter case against him was split up from the original Special Case (NDPS) No.41/2013. The trial Court proceeded against accused-Mohd. Raisuddin and Mohd. Naseer Khan in the said case and after examination of witnesses, after examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and after hearing both the parties, recorded conviction against accused in the said case, which was subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.200138/2016. The said appeal was allowed by this Court on 13.07.2018. However, the trial Court in the present case on the basis of the evidence recorded de novo trial convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs with default cause. 7. The appellant-accused being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has filed this appeal and has urged in his appeal memo that, the trial Court has not passed the judgment on the proper appreciation of evidence on record and only on the basis of examination-in-chief of the witnesses, the appellant has been convicted. The trial Court believing the evidence of PW.9, who is complainant, has convicted the accused, whereas conduct of PW.9 in conducting raid is not free for suspicion. It is very strange that PW.9 after receiving credible information did not ask any of his staff attached to his police station to accompany him during raid. The trial Court has not considered the fact that the unless and until there is evidence that seized articles are ganja, charge sheet under NDPS Act cannot be filed. The sample packets seized were sent for chemical examination. But the report from Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore was received on 06.02.2015 i.e. two years after filing of charge sheet. The trial Court has not considered the fact that the unless and until there is evidence that seized articles are ganja, charge sheet under NDPS Act cannot be filed. The sample packets seized were sent for chemical examination. But the report from Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore was received on 06.02.2015 i.e. two years after filing of charge sheet. The trial Court has not considered the fact that there is nothing on record as to whether the seized ganja was consisting seeds, leaves along with tops to bring seized articles within the definition of ganja as defined under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 9. After having heard both the sides, the following point arises for my consideration in this appeal: "Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is sustainable in law?" 10. This Court in Criminal Appeal No.200138/2016 by judgment dated 13.07.2018 after considering the entire material on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged offence against the accused persons in respect of that case and consequently, they were acquitted for the offence charged against them. 11. It is not in dispute that the same set of documents and the evidence of the witnesses was tendered in the present case, since split up case was registered against the present appellant-accused and the official witnesses including the complainant and the panchas who were examined in previous case were examined and same documents were got marked for the second time in this case. It is seen that all the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. However, panchas have turned hostile and they have not supported the conduct of raid and seizure of the alleged ganja from the possession of the accused. Therefore, this Court in the previous case has also observed that the evidence of the official witnesses needs corroboration by independent witnesses and only on the basis of evidence of official witnesses, raid and seizure of the contraband articles cannot be held as proved in accordance with law. Further this Court has also observed that there is a delay in sending the sample of ganja for chemical examination and the evidence in this regard is doubtful. The witnesses not identified the property seized. Further this Court has also observed that there is a delay in sending the sample of ganja for chemical examination and the evidence in this regard is doubtful. The witnesses not identified the property seized. There is nothing to show that the property seized was in safe custody till they were produced before the Court, till they were sent to FSL examination. It is also observed that IO has not made any effort to investigate the owner of the vehicle- MO.1. 12. Admittedly, in the present case PW.1- Mohammed Imran, PW.8-Sanjeev Reddy, who are the independent witnesses to the seizure panchanama- Ex.P1 and PW.4-Maruti who weighed ganja have not supported the prosecution case and all of them have turned hostile. Though the learned PP has cross-examined these witnesses, nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to show that they are purposely deposing falsehood. These witnesses have stated in clear terms that they were never taken to anywhere by the police and the police have not conducted any raid and they have not seized any ganja and they have not apprehended any of the persons in their presence. Therefore, the evidence of these material witnesses who are independent witnesses taken by PW.9 himself have not supported the prosecution case. Admittedly, remaining witnesses are the police official witnesses who have assisted the Investigating Officer in investigation. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted all official witnesses on the ground that the evidence of police officers cannot be discarded just because they are police witnesses. It is also necessary to observe that PW.9 has not taken the person from the locality for the purpose of conducting raid and there is no explanation in this regard. 13. Pw.7 Investigating Officer claims to have received seized articles on 10.09.2013. But he sent the seized articles on 26.09.2013 to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru. He does not explain the delay of 16 days in sending them to FSL. 14. Ex.P-5 is the report issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore. Admittedly, who is author of Ex.P5 is not examined in the case. 15. As per the prosecution case ganja was found in auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-38/2010, but there is no investigation conducted to connect the said auto rickshaw with the accused. The Investigating Officer did not investigate as to who is the registered owner of the said auto rickshaw. Admittedly, who is author of Ex.P5 is not examined in the case. 15. As per the prosecution case ganja was found in auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-38/2010, but there is no investigation conducted to connect the said auto rickshaw with the accused. The Investigating Officer did not investigate as to who is the registered owner of the said auto rickshaw. He has not explained for not conducting investigation in this regard. It is not even the case of the prosecution that the accused were the owners or hirers of the auto rickshaw. This Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Balkar Singh and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 582 has observed that "Unless the evidence is adduced to show ownership of poppy husk seized and how the bags were transported to the place of incident, the possession of such incriminating material by the accused cannot be held proved." 16. It is further observed by this Court that the question as to whether conviction can be recorded on the uncorroborated testimony of the official witnesses has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Leen Martin and Another, 2018 ACR 240 has held as follows: "11. It is to be noted that the entire case of the prosecution hinges on the alleged recovery of the narcotic substance from respondent No.1 but, this very fact is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as independent witnesses PW-8 and PW-9 have portrayed a different story as to the recovery and seizure. In the facts and circumstances of this case, exclusive reliance on the statement made by respondent No.1 would neither be prudent nor safe; especially considering the fact that, the statement of respondent No.1 procured under Sections 67 of the NDPS Act was retracted on 29.06.2004. 12. After analysis of the above circumstances and evidence, prudence dictates that the statement of the official witness PW-1 cannot be the sole basis for convicting the respondent No.1. It may be noted that when the statement of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused. It may be noted that when the statement of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused. In the present case, as already stated above, the statements of the independent panch witnesses depict a different picture than the one portrayed by the official witness PW-1." (Emphasis supplied) 17. After analysis of the above circumstances and evidence, it is crystal clear that the statement of the official witnesses including police officer who conducted alleged raid cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused person especially in view of the fact that when the statement of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused. In the present case statement of independent pancha witnesses shows different picture than the one portrayed by the official witness. Therefore, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the evidence of official witness cannot be sole basis for convicting the accused and in such case only independent witnesses (panchas) support seizure proceedings has to be applied. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid judgment and discussion made above, I hold that the trial Court fell in error in convicting the appellant-accused based on the sole evidence of official witnesses. The trial Court failed to notice that the police officer who conducted raid has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50 and 51 of NDPS Act. The trial Court also fell in error in arriving at the conclusion that the panchas and other independent witnesses are won over by the accused, without any evidence to base such conclusion. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed is unsustainable in law. The point is accordingly answered in the negative. 19. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/21.09.2016 passed by the Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Special Case (NDPS) No.36/2016 (Split up Case from Special Case (NDPS) No.41/2013) is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, and he shall be set at liberty if his detention is not required in any other case.