ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner-State under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal dated 23.03.2021, passed in Special Criminal (NDPS Act) Case No.18 of 2017 by the Court of learned Special Judge constituted under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent herein for offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.06.2017 at about 22:40 hours, near Polytechnic College, Ring Road, Ambikapur within the ambit of Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) the accused (respondent herein) was found in possession and selling the following psychotropic substances: (1) 14 Avil Pheniramine Maleaste Injection-10 ml each, total weight 140 ml; (2) 06 Clorfiniramin Mailiyet Injection-30 ml each total weight 180 ml; (3) Rexogesic Buprenorthin Injection-2 ml each, total 19 per pack ampul (total weight 38 ml) & (4) 50 Pentazocine Lactate Injection IP, 1 ml each (total weight 50 ml) and, thereby, committed the offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. 3. The learned Special Judge after conducting full-fledged trial and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record found that there is non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act and proceeded to acquit the accused-respondent herein for the aforesaid offence, against which the instant petition has been filed by the State seeking leave to prefer appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal. 4. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner-State submits that learned Special Judge was absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent/accused for the aforesaid offence for non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act; there is sufficient evidence available on record to show that Section 55 of the NDPS Act was fully complied with and there is ample evidence available on record to connect the accused-respondent with the offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and, as such, it is a fit case where leave can be granted to the State to prefer appeal against the impugned order of acquittal. 5. We have heard learned State counsel, considered his submissions, perused the impugned order of acquittal and also other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. 5. We have heard learned State counsel, considered his submissions, perused the impugned order of acquittal and also other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. It is not in dispute that psychotropic substances were seized by the Investigating Officer, namely, Deepak Kumar Sahu (PW-10) on 14.06.2017 from the accused-respondent, which he has said to be deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja vide Ex.P/38, which is addressed to the Head Constable, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja, asking him to deposit psychotropic substances alongwith other articles such as mobile etc. Apart from that, document Ex.P/28C has been filed which shows that the said psychotropic substances have been deposited vide Sr. No.74 on 17.06.2017 in the Malkhana of Police Station Gandhinagar. 7. The Investigating Officer-Deepak Kumar Sahu has been examined as PW-10, wherein he has categorically stated that he has seized the psychotropic substances on 14.06.2017 and deposited the same in the Malkhana of Police Station Gandhinagar on 17.06.2017. On being asked, as to where the seized psychotropic substances were on 15.06.2017 & 16.06.2017, because as per his own statement he has seized the psychotropic substances on 14.06.2017 and deposited the same in the Malkhana of Police Station Gandhinagar on 17.06.2017, he stated that vide Ex.P/38 the seized psychotropic substances were deposited with the Incharge of the Malkhana of Police Station Gandhinagar on 14.06.2017. Further, the Malkhana In-charge, namely, Jablun Kujoor, of Police Station Gandhinagar has been examined as PW-8, wherein he has clearly stated that the seized psychotropic substances have been deposited with him by the Investigating Officer (PW-10) on 17.06.2017. However, fact remains that vide Ex.P/28C, which is a register of seized articles, in which the seized psychotropic substances have been registered to be deposited on 17.06.2017. There is no explanation as to where the seized psychotropic substances were on 15.06.2017 & 16.06.2017 i.e. after seizure on 14.06.2017 and prior to deposit in the Malkahan on 17.06.2017. However, fact remains that vide Ex.P/28C, which is a register of seized articles, in which the seized psychotropic substances have been registered to be deposited on 17.06.2017. There is no explanation as to where the seized psychotropic substances were on 15.06.2017 & 16.06.2017 i.e. after seizure on 14.06.2017 and prior to deposit in the Malkahan on 17.06.2017. Furthermore, there is record available that sample of seized psychotropic substances was sent to the FSL, Raipur for the purpose of examination on 20.07.2017 vide Ex.P/40, but there is no mention in Ex.P/28C that said sample has been taken out from the Malkhana of Police Station Gandhinagar by a competent officer and for these cumulative reasons the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent herein for the offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. 8. Section 55 of the NDPS Act reads as under : “55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.-An officer-in-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station.” A careful reading of the above quoted provision would show that the purpose and object of Section 55 of the NDPS Act is to rule out any possibility of tampering the sample as stringent provisions with regard to punishment for offence under the Act have been made. The sanctity of the sample therefore has to be proved by the prosecution by leading thorough evidence. 9. This Court in the matter of Narendra Bhushan Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now CG), 2011 (1) CGLJ 259 has laid down the consequence of non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act in Para-18 of the pronouncement, which reads thus : “18. The Investigating Officer, who was the officer in-charge of the police station and who seized the contraband has been examined by the prosecution as PW-4. The Investigating Officer, who was the officer in-charge of the police station and who seized the contraband has been examined by the prosecution as PW-4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that seized ganja was sealed with the seal of the police station. In his cross-examination, he admits that he has seal in his own name. The mandate to Section 55 requires the officer in-charge of the police station to seal the sample with his own seal. However, no explanation has come forth from the prosecution even in the cross-examination of R.K. Rai (PW-4) as to why the officer in-charge did not affix his seal as required under Section 55 of the Act. This aspect assumes importance as in the cross-examination, a suggestion has been given that the incident happened in the night at some other place and the accused was sent to the police station along with the constable and the Investigating Officer had gone to Sakari where signatures of the witnesses were taken on all the documents. Section55 of the Act of 1985 requires the officer-in-charge of police station to take charge of and keep in safe custody all seized articles. The statutory scheme of the Act engrafted under Section 55 requires the officer-in-charge of the police station to seal all the samples with his own seal. The legislative intention is that there should be fair investigation for keeping the seized article in safe custody of the highest officer of the concerned police station so as to eliminate the possibility of the sample being tampered with till the same reaches the hands of the chemical examiner. Under provision contained in Section 55 such a duty has been enjoined upon the officer in-charge of the police station with the manifest object that the senior officers can be trusted to be fair in investigation and not indulging in dubious practices. When the prescribed procedure is abandoned, it gives rise to gnawing suspicion particularly when in the present case, the officer in-charge/S.H.O. himself had seized the articles.” 10. When the prescribed procedure is abandoned, it gives rise to gnawing suspicion particularly when in the present case, the officer in-charge/S.H.O. himself had seized the articles.” 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of provision of Section 55 of the NDPS Act and taking into consideration the further following decision of this Court in Narendra Bhushan Dubey (supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case the provision contained in Section 55 of the NDPS Act has been followed in breach and there is no evidence available on record to show as to where the seized psychotropic substances were lying on 15.06.2017 & 16.06.2017 i.e. after the date of its seizure (on 14.06.2017) and prior to its deposit in the Malkhana of Police Station Gandhinagar (on 17.06.2017), which is crystal clear from document Ex.P/28C dated 17.06.2017, duly proved by PW-8 and, therefore, its a case of total non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act and the learned Special Judge is absolutely justified in acquitting the accused-respondent herein for the offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. 11. Accordingly, we do not consider it a fit case to grant leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal of accused-respondent dated 23.03.2021 and same is liable to be rejected. 12. Consequently, the present petition for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed without notice to the other side.