JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - Appellants have assailed their conviction U/s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) and sentence to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for one year in the judgment dtd.25.3.2015 / 6.5.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, (Special Court), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.55 of 2012. 2. Tersely put, the prosecution case is that on 22.7.2012 at about 12.30 P.M. at Bhabanipali, while P.W.3 - the Inspector of Excise along with his staff including P.W.1 - Constable was patrolling, intercepted one Indigo Car bearing registration No.CG-04-HD-1338 on suspicion. Both the appellants were inside the vehicle. Appellant Baldev was the driver. Appellant Mohammad Awesh Memon was the occupant. Both of them were interrogated and were given option U/s.50 of NDPS Act. They expressed to be searched by P.W.3. Thereafter in presence of one independent witness (P.W.,2), search of the vehicle was conducted by P.W.3. A Jery bag containing 60 Kg. of Ganja was recovered. It was weighed. P.W.3 collected two sample packets each containing 50 gm. from the bulk and using his brass seal, sealed the bulk packet vide Ext.A (M.O.I), Ext.A-a - Ext.A-b (M.O.II). He prepared seizure list, recorded statement of accused persons and ascertained that the seized ganja was procured from one Iswar Prasad Satpathy (acquitted) and one Brahmanandam Jarvadi was the owner of the seized vehicle. P.W.3 - Inspector forwarded seized ganja to Town Police Station for safe custody and kept accused persons under his guard. Later, at 1.45 P.M., P.W.3 detected another case involving accused persons and submitted P.R. vide T.R. No.56 of 2012. On next day, the seized ganja was produced before court and one sample packet (Ext.A-b) was sent for chemical examination by S.D.J.M., Sambalpur. Chemical examination report in positive was received vide Ext.8. After completion of investigation P.W.3 submitted prosecution report No.15 of 2012 before the Special Court, Sambalpur against four accused persons including present two appellants and acquitted accused Iswar Prasad Satpathy. The fourth accused was Brahmanandam Jarvadi. The Special Court took cognizance of offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The case against Brahmanandam Jarvadi was split up vide order dtd.16.8.2013. Consequently, three accused persons faced trial to the charge. 2-A. Denial was the plea of accused persons. Prosecution examined three witnesses in all. P.W.1 is a constable. The fourth accused was Brahmanandam Jarvadi. The Special Court took cognizance of offence U/s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The case against Brahmanandam Jarvadi was split up vide order dtd.16.8.2013. Consequently, three accused persons faced trial to the charge. 2-A. Denial was the plea of accused persons. Prosecution examined three witnesses in all. P.W.1 is a constable. P.W.3 is the Inspector who detected and conducted investigation. P.W.2, the sole independent witness, is declared hostile. Eighteen documents are exhibited. Bulk ganja and one sample packet are made M.O.I and M.O.II. Defence adduced no evidence, either oral or documentary. 2-B. Learned Special Judge has mentioned in judgment para 2 as follows:- "2. Before entering into the discussion of the facts of the case in hand, a little reference to the backdrop needs mention. That, two cases have been detected by the then Inspector of Excise, District Mobile, Sambalpur, on a single day, i.e. on 22.7.2012, with a gap of one hour and fifteen minutes. While the case in hand was detected at about 12.30 P.M., the second case in TR No.56 of 2012 was detected at about 1.45 P.M. The subject matter involved in both the cases are interlinked inter alia. Thus, both the cases were heard together on some common points for better appreciation." Analyzing evidence, learned Special Judge held that: (i) Absence of independent corroboration, i.e. P.W.2 would not shake the evidence of official witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 as they are reliable. (ii) Non-compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act is not fatal as the empowered officer (P.W.3) conducted search U/s.100 and Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. and the empowered officer is not required to inform the Superior Authority. (iii) Fact of sealing being not disputed during production in the Court, non-production of brass seal is no way prejudicial to the accused persons. (iv) Only material against Accused Iswar Prasad Satpathy is coaccused statement and the investigation is not proper to that extent. Accordingly, he acquitted accused Iswar Prasad Satpathy of the charge but convicted both the appellants and passed sentence as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. Manas Chand submitted that learned Special Court has committed error in not considering the material inconsistent testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 which excludes the presence of accused persons at the spot. Accordingly, he acquitted accused Iswar Prasad Satpathy of the charge but convicted both the appellants and passed sentence as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. Manas Chand submitted that learned Special Court has committed error in not considering the material inconsistent testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 which excludes the presence of accused persons at the spot. Further, when the informant is the investigating officer, the non-production of brass seal in court and absence of any evidence that the seized ganja was kept in police station Malkhana till production in court, create doubt about reliability of P.W.3. Added to that, he submitted that non-compliance of Section 42 is prejudicial to the interest of defence. For such defective investigation, when trial court has considered two cases detected in one hour gap, the accused persons should have been given benefit of doubt as per decision reported in Mohan Lal Vrs. State of Punjab, (2018) 72 OCR 196 (SC) . 3-A. Learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. P. K. Patnaik repelled the above argument contending that the well reasoned impugned judgment does not merit any interference in the appeal. He submitted that the Mohan Lal's case (supra) has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex court in the decision reported in Varinder Kumar Vrs. State of Himanchan Pradesh, (2019) 73 OCR 946 (SC) . 4. Learned Special judge at the prologue of the judgment (extracted in para 2-B) has mentioned about two cases detected within one hour fifteen minutes involving accused persons by P.W.3 and thereby he heard both the cases together. P.W.3 in cross-examination para 6 has stated that "it is a fact that Iswar Prasad Satpathy was arrested in another case and also utmost during the course of investigation of this case. Baladev Jadab and Md. Awes Memon were also arrested in another case and forwarded to court on the same day. Soon after the seizure I sent the property to Town Police Station through Birabara Swain, the constable." The second case is TR No.56 of 2012. The cardinal principle of criminal trial is that evidence of one case cannot be used in another case unless brought in as per Law. Trial of two cases for being interlinked and hearing together for some common points, is not commensurable with the principle of fair trial. In the Varinder Kumar decision (supra) it is observed as follows:- "14. The cardinal principle of criminal trial is that evidence of one case cannot be used in another case unless brought in as per Law. Trial of two cases for being interlinked and hearing together for some common points, is not commensurable with the principle of fair trial. In the Varinder Kumar decision (supra) it is observed as follows:- "14. The principle of fair trial now informs and energises many areas of the law. It is a constant, ongoing, evolutionary process continually adapting itself to changing circumstances, and endeavouring to meet the exigencies of the situation - peculiar at times - and related to the nature of crime, persons involved, directly or operating from behind, and so many other powerful factors which may come in the way of administration of criminal justice, wherefore the endeavour of t he higher courts, while interpreting the law, is to strike the right balance." 5. Appellate Court is under legal obligation to make independent appreciation of the evidence to arrive at a conclusion. The gamut of prosecution evidence is three prosecution witnesses who were in whole cited in the prosecution report. P.W.1 is the constable while P.W.3 is the investigating officer who detected and lodged report. P.W.2 an independent witness does not support prosecution telling that his signatures were taken in blank papers. There is no reason to discard the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3 because they are police officials. Both of t hem testified that on 22.7.2012 at 12.30 P.M. one Indigo Car proceeding towards Sambalpur was detained and searched. A Jery bag containing 60Kg. ganja (M.O.I) was recovered. It was weighed and sample of two packets A/a and A/b were extracted using brass seal and the brass seal was left in zima of P.W.2 under Zimanama (Ext.3). P.W.3 has stated about seizure list (Ext.1). Most importantly, P.W.1 in cross-examination para-2 has stated that accused Baldev Yadav was not present during the time of detection of the case. In para-4, he further states that "after detaining the vehicle we found only two persons there in it, namely, Mohammad Memon and Iswar Prasad Satpathy." This part of evidence that Iswar Chandra Satpathy was present and Baldev Yadav was not present during detection, runs contrary to P.W.3 who detected and arrested the accused persons. In para-4, he further states that "after detaining the vehicle we found only two persons there in it, namely, Mohammad Memon and Iswar Prasad Satpathy." This part of evidence that Iswar Chandra Satpathy was present and Baldev Yadav was not present during detection, runs contrary to P.W.3 who detected and arrested the accused persons. Ext.9 and Ext.10 are the arrest memos which reveal that on 22.7.2012 at 1.20 P.M, both the accused persons were arrested at spot. Both of them, as per LCR order-sheet, were produced before court on 23.7.2012. From above evidence, the credibility of two official witnesses, whom prosecution relies, does not inspire confidence. Either of them is to be disbelieved. Such doubtful and untrustworthy testimonies cast shadow about the presence of two appellants at the time of detection particularly when another case was detected after one hour and fifteen minutes at the spot by P.W.3. Learned trial court has ignored this part of evidence while appreciating official witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 6. On the aspect of the safe custody of seized "Ganja" from the time of seizure till production in the court, the evidence of the prosecution is neither clinching nor un-impeachable. P.W.3 states that he seized bulk ganja packet Ext.A, Ext.A/a, Ext.A/b using brass seal under Ext.1. The seized ganja was kept in the safe custody of the Town Thana. He proved the requisition Ext.6 and on next day he received back the same from police station. In cross-examination para-5 he states that the seized properties were sent by Birabara Swain (not examined) one of our staff to town P.S. He has admitted in cross- examination para 5 that P.R. did not disclose this fact. He has not seized any document of Town P.S. including Malkhana Register. P.W.1 in para 6 has stated that after collecting the sample ganja, the same were kept by Sesadev Dash (P.W.3) and he has not signed in the sample packets. The sample packets were kept by the Inspector and they all then came back to the office at Sambalpur. He further states that on the same day at 3.30 P.M., the accused persons with seized properties were produced before the Court. Hence, P.W.1 runs contrary to P.W.3. With such vital discrepancies, the L.C.R. reveals that accused persons were produced on 23.7.2012 and seized articles and brass seal were produced at the same time. He further states that on the same day at 3.30 P.M., the accused persons with seized properties were produced before the Court. Hence, P.W.1 runs contrary to P.W.3. With such vital discrepancies, the L.C.R. reveals that accused persons were produced on 23.7.2012 and seized articles and brass seal were produced at the same time. Section 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act provides the manner of keeping the seized articles in safe custody at police station and use of seal of the officer in charge of the police station. P.W.3 does not follow any such procedure. No corroborative evidence comes from the source of police station. The person who took seized articles is not examined. The infirmities noted above make the matter of safe custody mysterious. In the decision reported in Haren Mandal Vrs. State of Odisha, (2019) 75 OCR 387 it is held as follows:- "9. Xxxxxxx. It is the duty of the prosecution to adduce cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence to prove that the contraband articles after its seizure were not only properly sealed and kept in safe custody before its production in Court and that there was no chance of tampering with the same, but also the articles which were produced in the Court, were the very articles which were seized in the case. The entire path right from the point of the seizure of contraband articles till its production before the Court for its dispatch to the chemical examiner has to be covered by the prosecution by adducing clinching evidence as the punishment prescribed for the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are very stringent in nature." 7. Learned Lower court found that compliance with section 42 of NDPS by I.O. is not necessary as he is the empowered officer. This is not correct in view of the ratio laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnail Singh Vrs. State of Haryana, (2009) 44 OCR 183 (SC) wherein it is held as follows:- "17. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. State of Haryana, (2009) 44 OCR 183 (SC) wherein it is held as follows:- "17. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows: (a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 42 from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1). (b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior. (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of 2001." 7-A. As far as Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is concerned, it has no application since the recovery was not from the person of the appellants but from the vehicle. 8. What is demonstrative from the non-compliance of section 42 of N.D.P.S. Act and mysterious path adopted to keep the custody of seized article is that the investigation is so defective that prejudice has been caused to accused persons. Learned Trial Court's view on this score is not tenable. 8-A. In the Varinder Kumar decision (supra) their Lordships clarifying the Mohan Lal's decision, have stated as follows:- "18. The criminal justice delivery system, cannot be allowed to veer exclusively to the benefit of the offender making it unidirectional exercise. A proper administration of the criminal justice delivery system, therefore requires balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecution, so that the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) is not allowed to become a spring board for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same, irrespective of all other considerations. A proper administration of the criminal justice delivery system, therefore requires balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecution, so that the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) is not allowed to become a spring board for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same, irrespective of all other considerations. We therefore hold that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case." 9. In the wake of above Law, on the independent analysis of the evidence on record, this court finds every reason to upset the conviction of appellants extending benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants in T.R. Case No.55 of 2012 by learned Sessions Judge-cum-Judge (Special Court), Sambalpur is set aside and both the appellants are acquitted of the charge. Both the appellants be set at liberty if their detention is not required in any other case / cases. L.C.Rs. be returned immediately.