JUDGMENT : P. PATNAIK, J. 1. The aforementioned appeals arisen out of the common judgment dated 05.12.2015 have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 16/1 of 2014-15 whereby the appellants herein have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and have been sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each in default of fine, the convicts shall undergo further period of R.I. for one year each. 3. The prosecution case, as has been projected on the basis of F.I.R. in nutshell is that on 08.08.2014 while Sri. B.B. Nayak and other P.S. staff of Rairakhol Police Station, during patrolling duty in Rairakhol Town with P.S. staff saw one Ambassador Car crossed police vehicle in a high speed with suspicious manner. So he chased the car and detained near Bobby filling service station Rairkhol and detected the registration number of the car UP-62-6813 and three persons were in exclusive and conscious position of contraband Ganja in three Polly bags. The P.S. staff arranged the local witnesses, weigh man and other documents for seizure. Since it was chance detection other formalities could not be observed. He seized the Ganja car and other belonging of the accused persons observing the formalities as laid down in NDPS Act. Being interrogated the accused persons confessed before witnesses about transportation of Ganja to Banaras for commercial purpose which was procured by one Suryaprakash from Boudh side. Accordingly, he submitted written report before the Rairakhol Police Station and directed S.I. Sushma Kuanr to take up investigation of the case. During investigation, the I.O. visited spot, examined witnesses, submitted detail report to the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants keeping open the investigation against the other accused-Surya Prakash. 4. During the trial the prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined altogether 13 witnesses. 5. PW-1 is the A.S.I. of police and was present at the time of detection of this case. PW-5 is the Havildar and also present at the time of detection of this case. PWs. 2, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 are the seizure witnesses. PWs. 3, 4 and 9 are other witnesses. 5. PW-1 is the A.S.I. of police and was present at the time of detection of this case. PW-5 is the Havildar and also present at the time of detection of this case. PWs. 2, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 are the seizure witnesses. PWs. 3, 4 and 9 are other witnesses. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. 6. On scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly, PWs. 1, 5, 11 and 13, prosecution has proved that the accused persons were transporting 72 kgs of ganja in Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. UP-62-6813. PW-1 in his evidence deposed that, on 08.08.2014 as per direction of the Inspector-in-charge, he went with S.I. Binod Bihari Naik, Havildar Ramakanta Sahu, Home Guard Dibakar Bohidar in police jeep for night patrolling in Rairakhol town area. After patrolling they were returning to Police Station. About 5.30 to 6.00 A.M. at Khadhadipa bridge they found one Ambassador car was coming from Rairakhol side towards Sambalpur in high speed. S.I. Naik on suspicion chased the vehicle for one K.M. and could stop the vehicle near Bobby Filling Petrol Pump. In the said vehicle there were three persons two of them were sitting on the back seat. The driver disclosed his name as Baboolal. The two persons sitting on the back seat disclosed their names as Pravakar Tripathy and Sohan Ray. PW-1 deposed that, S.I. Naik asked the driver to open the dicky of the car for checking and after opening of the dickey three polythene bags were found from the dickey. There was smell of ganja from the three polythene bags. PW-1 deposed that, the S.I. asked the driver to show authority for possession and transportation of the alleged ganja. Then the S.I. asked the driver about his option for his personal search and search of the vehicle in presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, the driver denied for search before any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. PW-1 further deposed that, the S.I. served notice to the driver and the two persons for search of the vehicle and their personal search. The S.I. sent him to bring two local witnesses and weigh man. The S.I. sent Havildar Ramakanta Sahu to the P.S. to bring forms and other materials for seizure. PW-1 further deposed that, the S.I. served notice to the driver and the two persons for search of the vehicle and their personal search. The S.I. sent him to bring two local witnesses and weigh man. The S.I. sent Havildar Ramakanta Sahu to the P.S. to bring forms and other materials for seizure. PW-1 deposed that, he called Gourishankar Patra (PW-6) and Prakash Mukhi (PW-2) as witnesses and Ramesh Naik to weigh the property. Havildar Ramkanta Sahu (PW-5) returned from the Police Station with forms and other documents. PW-1 deposed that, the three polythene bags were weighed and found 40 kgs, 20 kgs and 12 kg respectively of the alleged ganja in the said three polythene bags. The I.O. gave identification marks A, B & C to the three bags of ganja and collected two samples of 25 grams of ganja each from each of the polythene bags and kept the samples in paper envelopes with identification marks A/1, A/2, B/1, B/2 and C/1, C/2 to the sample of ganja. Then the S.I. sealed all the three polythene bags containing ganja with identification marks A, B & C and all the sample envelopes containing ganja with his brass seal and prepared seizure list in presence of the accused and witnesses. PW-1 did not sign in the seizure list of the alleged ganja and the samples of ganja. PW-1 further deposed that the S.I. took personal search of driver Baboolal and recovered from his possession two Nokia mobile phones, voter card and PAN card. The S.I. also took personal search of accused Pravakar Tripathy and recovered from his possession two Samsung mobile phones, cash of Rs. 13,500/- and voter card. The S.I. took personal search of accused Sohan Ray and recovered from his possession two Nokia mobile phones, cash of Rs. 320/- voter card and PAN card. PW-1 deposed that the S.I. prepared seizure list at the spot. The S.I. also seized the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. UP-62-6813 and prepared seizure list. The S.I. gave in zima the weighing machine and the brass seal to Ramesh Naik. PW-2 and other witnesses also did not say anything about seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused person and PW-2 was also declared hostile. PW-3 is an independent witness (having motorcycle garage and did not identify that accused person or knows nothing about the case). PW-2 and other witnesses also did not say anything about seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused person and PW-2 was also declared hostile. PW-3 is an independent witness (having motorcycle garage and did not identify that accused person or knows nothing about the case). PW-4 is an independent witness (Business man did not identify the accused persons or knows nothing about the case). PW-5 was the Havildar. He deposed that, on 08.08.2014 he accompanied S.I. B.B. Naik, ASI and two Home Guards in night patrolling in Rairakhol area. At Khandadhipa Chowk one Ambassador Car was going in high speed bearing Registration No. UP-62-6813. They chased the said Ambassador car about 1 K.M. They detained the said Ambassador car at Rairakhol petrol pump. There were three persons in the Ambassador car who are the accused. The S.I. asked the accused persons about any contraband property in the vehicle and the accused persons remained silent. The S.I. then searched the vehicle and found three packets of ganja from the dickey and under the back seat of the car. The S.I. demanded authority for possession of ganja but they failed to produce any authority. The S.I. sent him to bring two witnesses, forms and other sealing materials from the P.S. He brought three persons namely; Gouri Shankar Patra (PW-6), Prakash Mukhi (PW-2) and Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7) and other sealing materials and forms from the P.S. The S.I. took weight of ganja of the three packets and found 40kgs, 20 kgs and 12 kgs respectively. The S.I. collected two samples of 25 grams each from each packet and sealed the samples. The three bags of ganja were kept in cloth bags and sealed. The S.I. prepared the documents at the spot. After search and seizure and preparation of all the documents they returned to the P.S. with the accused and the seized properties. PW-5 did not sign in the seizure list and other documents. PW-6 did not say anything about the seizure of the ganja from the possession of the accused and has been declared hostile. PW-7 is the weigh man. He did not say anything about the case nor taking of zima of brass seal or weighing machine but, he has proved his signatures in the documents vide Exts.1/4, 1/5, 6, 6/1, 7 and 7/1. PW-7 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-7 is the weigh man. He did not say anything about the case nor taking of zima of brass seal or weighing machine but, he has proved his signatures in the documents vide Exts.1/4, 1/5, 6, 6/1, 7 and 7/1. PW-7 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-8 is the witness to the seizure of command certificate. He proved seizure list vide Ext.8 and the command certificate vide Ext.9. PWs. 9 and 10 are the Home Guards. PW-9 did not support the prosecution case. PW-10 only speaks about seizure of a document and register relating to detection of ganja vide seizure list Ext.10. PW-11 is the S.I. of Police, who detected the case. He testified that on 07.08.2014 he was posted as S.I. of police at Rairakhol P.S. On the direction of the I.I.C. Rairakhol P.S. he conducted night patrolling duty with A.S.I. P.K. Garnaik (PW-1) and other police officers at Rairakhol town. On the next morning about 6.00 A.M. they were returning to P.S. At-Khandadhipa bridge one white Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. UP-62-6813 was coming in high speed from Angul side towards Sambalpur. They chased the said Ambassador car for about 1 k.m. and could able to detain the vehicle at old petrol pump. There were three persons in the vehicle. Accused Baboolal was driving the vehicle and accused Pravakar Tripathy and Sohan Ray were sitting in the vehicle. PW-11 identified all the three accused in Court. PW-11 found one bag on the back seat of the vehicle and two bags in the dickey of the vehicle. The accused persons admitted before PW-11 to have been transporting ganja in three bags in the car. PW-11 asked the three accused whether they want to be searched in presence of any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and they denied to be searched by either of them. PW-11 sent ASI P.K. Garnaik to bring two local witnesses. PW-11 proved the willingness of the accused vide Ext.11. Ext.11/1 is the signature of PW-11 in the Memo of willingness of the accused. Ext.11/2 is the signature of accused Sohan Ray. Ext.11/3 is the signature of accused Baboolal. Ext.11/4 is the signature of accused Prabakar Tripathy. PW-11 further deposed that , the A.S.I. came with three persons Gouri Shankar Patro (PW-6), Prakash Mukhi (PW-2) and weigh man Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7). Ext.11/2 is the signature of accused Sohan Ray. Ext.11/3 is the signature of accused Baboolal. Ext.11/4 is the signature of accused Prabakar Tripathy. PW-11 further deposed that , the A.S.I. came with three persons Gouri Shankar Patro (PW-6), Prakash Mukhi (PW-2) and weigh man Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7). PW-11 further deposed that in presence of witnesses Gouri Shankar Patrol (PW-6) and Prakash Mukhi (PW-2), he opened the first bag and weigh man Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7) took weight of the ganja and found 40 kgs. Then the second bag was opened and weighed and found 12 kgs. PW-11 collected two samples of ganja of 25 grams each from each bag and kept the samples of ganja in packets and sealed the same in presence of witnesses and the accused. PW-11 kept the remaining bulk ganja in the bags and sealed the same in presence of the witnesses and the accused. PW-11 gave identification mark ‘A’ to the first bulk ganja and the samples ‘A-1’ ‘A-2’, to the second bag ‘B’ and the samples ‘B-1’ ‘B-2’ and to the third bag ‘C’ and the samples ‘C-1’ and ‘C-2’. PW-11 has proved in Court one part of sample ganja ‘A-2 vide M.O.I. ‘B-2’ vide M.O.II and ‘C-2’ vide M.O.III. PW-11 obtained signatures of the accused, witnesses and weigh man in the M.Os. PW-11 kept specimen brass seal in another envelope and gave identification mark ‘D-1’. PW-11 has proved the envelope containing specimen brass seal in sealed condition vide M.O.IV. PW-11 has also proved his signatures in the M.Os. vide M.O.I/1, M.O.II/1, M.O.III/1, and M.O.IV/1. PW-11 then took personal search of the accused persons. PW-11 seized two Nokia Mobile phones, one voter identity card from accused Baboolal vide seizure list Ext.2/2 and his signature Ext.2/3. He also seized two nokia mobile phones, one voter identity card, one PAN Card and cash of Rs. 320/- from accused Sohan Ray vide seizure list Ext.3/2 and his signature Ext.3/3. He also seized from accused Pravakar Tripathy two Samsung Mobile Phones, one voter identity card in the name of Surya Prakash and cash of Rs. 13,500/- vide seizure list Ext.4/2 and his signature Ext.4/3. PW-11 also seized the weighing machine from Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7) vide seizure list Ext.5/3, Ext.5/4 is his signature. PW-11 left the weighing machine in zima of Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7) vide Zimanama Ext.7/2, 7/3 is his signature in the zimanama. 13,500/- vide seizure list Ext.4/2 and his signature Ext.4/3. PW-11 also seized the weighing machine from Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7) vide seizure list Ext.5/3, Ext.5/4 is his signature. PW-11 left the weighing machine in zima of Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7) vide Zimanama Ext.7/2, 7/3 is his signature in the zimanama. PW-11 also seized the bulks of ganja in three bags with weight 39.950 grams, 19.950 grams and 11.950 grams in presence of the accused and the witnesses and prepared seizure list vide Ext.1/6, Ext.1/7 is his signature in the seizure list. PW-11 left the brass seal in zima of Ramesh Chandra Naik (PW-7) vide Zimanama Ext.6/2. PW-12 is the constable and deposed that S.I. S. Kuanr seized one command certificate from C/736 Dasarathi Meher and prepared seizure list vide Ext.13. Ext.14 is the command certificate. He also proved that S.I. S. Kuanr also seized one Despatch Register from S.I. Sonia Badek and prepared seizure list vide Ext.15. PW-13 is the I.O. She deposed that during investigation she took charge of the seized properties produced by S.I. B.B. Naik and the accused persons arrested by S.I. B.B. Naik. PW-13 examined S.I. B.B. Naik and kept the seized properties in Police Station Malkhana vide Malkhana Entry no. 49/14. She also examined witnesses Prasant Kumar Gannayak, ASI of police, Rairakhol P.S., Ramakanta Sahu, Havildar, Home Guard Dibakar Bohidar and Tripurari Behera. She deposed that the IIC informed to the S.D.P.O. and the S.P. about detection of ganja. She submitted a detailed report to the S.P., Sambalpur vide report Ext.16. She visited the spot and prepared spot map vide Ext.17. She also examined accused Baboolal, Prabhakar Tripathy and Sohan Ray, sent them for their medical examination and arrested them. She forwarded all the three accused to Court. She made prayer to Court to deposit the seized properties in Court Malkhana. The Special Court directed the S.D.J.M. Samablpur to send sample of contraband property to the R.F.S.L. Sambalpur for examination vide Ext.18 the forwarding report of the S.D.J.M. Sambalpur regarding sending of samples of ganja to the R.F.S.L. Sambalpur for examination. PW-13 also proved the Chemical examination report forwarded to the S.P. Sambalpur by the Deputy Director, vide Memo No. 2434 dated 16.08.2014 which is marked as Ext.19 (with objection as the chemical examination report is the copy of the original). 7. PW-13 also proved the Chemical examination report forwarded to the S.P. Sambalpur by the Deputy Director, vide Memo No. 2434 dated 16.08.2014 which is marked as Ext.19 (with objection as the chemical examination report is the copy of the original). 7. After closer of prosecution case, the appellants were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. about the incriminating materials, to which they denied. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted vehemently that all the prosecution witnesses have stated that the chemical examination report produced by the prosecution which was objected by the appellants during course of trial as it is a carbon copy and no original chemical examination report filed by the prosecution hence it is not admissible in the eye of law which is supported by a case law in view of the ratio laid down in case of Basant Kumar Pradhan and Another vs. State of Orissa, 2016 (1) OLR 766 . He further submits that if the chemical examination report is taken out of consideration then there is no evidence on record that any kind of test was conducted by any person having Departmental experience to ascertain that the articles seized was nothing but Ganja and in absence of such oral evidence that conviction of the appellant for possessing the contraband Ganja of commercial quantity cannot be sustained. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the issue was affirmed by this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 07.08.2019 passed in the case of Jalandhar Singh vs. State of Orissa, 2019 (2) OLR 665 . He further submitted that in the case of Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 4231, the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the settled position of law that xerox copies/photocopies are not admissible in evidence. 9. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State has vociferously submitted that the chemical examination report is a carbon copy of original chemical examination report and is admissible under law since it is a carbon copy and which has been proved by PW-13. Section 62 Explanation (2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 states that where a number of documents are made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each one of is a primary evidence if the contents of the exhibits is not disputed. Section 62 Explanation (2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 states that where a number of documents are made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each one of is a primary evidence if the contents of the exhibits is not disputed. So, Ext.19 is a primary document as it is made by same process with the original and the signatures are in original. Therefore, the chemical examination report forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur by the Deputy Director vide Ext.19 is admissible. He further submitted that Section 74 of the Evidence clearly states that the following documents are public documents: 1. Documents forming the acts or records of the acts: (i) Of the sovereign authority. (ii) Of the official bodies and Tribunals. (iii) Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of (any part of India or of the Commonwealth), or of a foreign country. 10. The documents prepared by a public official is public documents. So the documents prepared by Forensic Laboratory which is a public institution is public documents. The document which has been exhibited is a carbon copy of the original copy. The carbon copy is generally prepared at the time of preparation of original documents. So that is presumed to be as original. Therefore, the chemical examination report vide Ext.19 cannot be discarded which is admissible. He further submits that while the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that time the accused never disputed before the learned trial court relating to contents of Ext.19 at question no. 14. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that PWs. 1 and 5 categorically deposed that the Ganja was seized, PW-13 in his deposition at paragraph-5 has categorically stated that he has “found three bags of ganja in the vehicle with smell of ganja and also categorically stated that it is a fact that I mentioned in the F.I.R. that after recovery of three bags of ganja with smell of ganja”. He further stated that after observing all formalities under NDPS Act and following due procedure, the Investigating Officer seized the ganja so also arrested the accused person and also made personal search of the accused persons. He further stated that after observing all formalities under NDPS Act and following due procedure, the Investigating Officer seized the ganja so also arrested the accused person and also made personal search of the accused persons. The carbon copy of the original copy is admissible in the eye of law which is supported by a case law in view of ratio laid down in case of Mahinder Singh vs. Jasobanta Kaur, 2019 SCC Online SC 1617. The most of the witnesses supported the prosecution case and accordingly their evidence was accepted by the trial court and there is no irregularity, infirmity for conviction of the appellants, hence, the appeals may kindly be dismissed. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the learned trial court has rightly found the appellants guilty under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and in that view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant interference by this Court. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears in the present case the original chemical examination report Ext.19 has not seen the light of the day. Photo copy of the chemical examination report has been proved. PW-13 has stated that the original chemical report was directly sent to the Court by RFSL, Sambalpur but such a document is not available in Court record. If the original chemical examination report was not available on record, then the prosecution should have been led secondary evidence in accordance with law. Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act states that secondary evidence might be given of the existence, condition or contents of the documents when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act by producing the certified copy of that document but no other kind of secondary document, is admissible. Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act states that secondary evidence might be given of the existence, condition or contents of the documents when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act by producing the certified copy of that document but no other kind of secondary document, is admissible. Section 76 of the Evidence Act states as to who is to give the certified copies of the public documents and also states that written certificate to be furnished at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof and such certificate shall be dated and scribed by such officer with his name and his official title and shall also the sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. 12. The contraband ganja was weighed and seized in presence of PWs. 2 and 6, but they did not say anything rather turned hostile. PW-11 is the S.I. of police detected the case and is informant found one bag on the back side of the vehicle and two bags in the dickey of the vehicle whereas PW-1, A.S.I. of police was also present at the time of detection said that after opening the dickey three polythene bags were found from the dickey, there evidences are not corroborated by oral evidence. PW-5 is the Havildar and was also present at the time of detection but the brass seal of the samples of ganja was not properly done and so also PW-7, who is the weigh man and taken zima of brass seal had denied everything. From the evidence of PW-11 and other witnesses it appears that during course of search and seizure that the investigating agency have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 52 and 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act. While the search was made by PW-11, no gazette officer or any magistrate was present at the time of search and seizure. From the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses it appears that no independent and seizure witnesses having supported the prosecution case but the learned trial court only basing on the evidence of the official witnesses has been pleased to pass the order of conviction and sentence. 13. From the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses it appears that no independent and seizure witnesses having supported the prosecution case but the learned trial court only basing on the evidence of the official witnesses has been pleased to pass the order of conviction and sentence. 13. To sum-up; in a case like the present one, where there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other on material aspects. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 14. To strengthen the view of this Court, it would be profitable to refer the case law enunciated in the case of Bahadur Singh vs. State of M.P. and Another, 2002 (2) OLR SC 565 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that “No conviction will lie on the sole testimony of police witnesses. Recovery, seizure and deposit of the contraband articles not proved through independent witnesses. Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 15. In the light of the yardstick for scrutinizing and evaluating the evidence as indicated in the case of Bahadur Singh (supra), when this Court examined the evidence led by the prosecution for sustaining the charge under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the appellants, this Court is inclined to hold that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur convicting the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing them to undergo ten years R.I and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one year each in T.R. Case No. 16/1 of 2014-15 are hereby set aside. 16. Accordingly, appellants are directed to be released from custody forthwith, if their detention is not required in any other case. 17. The CRLAs stand allowed.