Judgment Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J. This appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2016/10.03.2016 passed by Judge, Special Court, Pathankot, convicting the appellant-accused under Section 22 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay fine Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Facts of prosecution are that on 01.01.2015, police party headed by Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5), apprehended accused-appellant, in the area of Gowshalla Turning Point, Pathankot, suspecting his conduct, as on seeing police party, he took out one plastic packet (lifafa) from pocket of his pant and threw it on the ground. 3. On checking the polythene packet (lifafa), some intoxicant powder was recovered. Two samples each weighing 10 grams were separated and converted into two parcels. Remaining contraband was weighed and found to be 100 grams, which was put into the third parcel. All the parcels were sealed by ASI Surjit Raj with his seal bearing impression ‘SR’. Sample (Ex.P-1) of his seal was also prepared by him on Form M-29 (Ex.PX) and, thereafter, he handed over his seal to PHC Pawan Kumar (PW-2). Seizure memo (Ex.PW-2/A) was prepared. 4. Ruqa (Ex.PW-5/A) was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.PW-5/B as mentioned in the judgment) under Sections 21/22 of the Act was registered. Arrest-cum-intimation memo (Ex.PW-2/B), personal search memo (Ex.PW-2/C) and site plan (Ex.PW-5/C) were prepared at the spot. 5. Thereafter, the accused along with the case property was produced before SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1), who affixed his seal bearing impression ‘SS’ on the case property and prepared sample (Ex.P-2) of his seal on CFSL Form (Ex.PX). He also prepared handing over case property memo (Ex.PW-1/A). 6. On the next day, ASI Surjit Raj, (PW-5) produced case property before the Magistrate by submitting inventory report (Ex.PW-1/B) and application (Ex.PW-1/C), who passed authentication order (Ex.PW-5/D). Thereafter, the case property was deposited with SHO Sukhjinder Singh. Sample parcels along with sample seal were sent for chemical examination. Report (Ex.PZ) was sent by Chemical Examiner, which reflected Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance in the recovered contraband. After completion of usual formalities of investigation, Challan was presented in trial Court against the accused-appellant. 7. Thereafter, the case property was deposited with SHO Sukhjinder Singh. Sample parcels along with sample seal were sent for chemical examination. Report (Ex.PZ) was sent by Chemical Examiner, which reflected Alprazolam, a psychotropic substance in the recovered contraband. After completion of usual formalities of investigation, Challan was presented in trial Court against the accused-appellant. 7. After making due compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charge under Section 22 (c) of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. To prove the charge against the appellant-accused, prosecution examined ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5), the investigating officer, HC Pawan Kumar (PW-2), recovery witness. Both of them described the entire incident leading to recovery of 120 grams of contraband from the possession of the appellant-accused. SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1) deposed about presenting the case property and appellant-accused before him for verification and authentication of the recovery proceedings and sealing of case property with his seal bearing impressions ‘SS’, and, thereafter deposit of case property in Malkhana and sending the sample parcels along with sample seal to the office of chemical examiner for analysis . HC Pawan Kumar (PW-2) further deposed that he deposited the sample parcel in the office of Chemical Examiner in intact condition. PHC Balwinder Kumar (PW-3) deposed that he handed over the special reports of this case to the Magistrate and higher police officers. PHC Gurdip Singh (PW-4) deposed that on 06.01.2015, he could not deposit sample parcel in the office of the Chemical Examiner due to leave of the concerned Clerk and re-deposited the sample parcel with SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1) on same day. 9. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant-accused denied all the allegations of prosecution case and pleaded his false implication in this case by planting the same on him. He stated that no recovery was effected from him. However, led no evidence in his defence. 10. Aggrieved with the findings of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant-accused preferred the instant appeal. 11. Case of prosecution has been primarily assailed on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50, 52-A (2) (c) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that to overcome the hurdle of non- compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the Act, a false narrative of throwing a packet containing intoxicant substance by the appellant has been set up. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that to overcome the hurdle of non- compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the Act, a false narrative of throwing a packet containing intoxicant substance by the appellant has been set up. Further, the incident as projected is highly improbable. In fact, no such incident ever took place. Appellant was falsely implicated in the case. Nonetheless, breach of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act has made entire recovery illegal. 12. Further, relying upon decisions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another’ (2016) 3 SCC 379 and `Simarnjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab’ 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution case is completely vitiated as the work of drawing sample was done by ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5), the investigating officer himself. No sample was drawn before the learned Magistrate as mandated by the provisions of Section 52-A (2) (c), neither any photographs of the inventory were taken. Even an application for certification was moved on the next date i.e. 02.01.2015 (Ex.PW-1/C), vitiating the entire investigation as well as trial. It is stated that on this ground alone, prosecution case is liable to be rejected and conviction so rendered to the appellant is bad in the eyes of law and entails acquittal. 13. Impeaching prosecution case further, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that alleged recovery took place on 01.01.2015 and sample was sent in the office of Chemical Examiner on 12.01.2015. There is unexplained delay of 12 days in sending sample parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner, which is against the Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.03.1988. These instructions clearly mandate that sample has to be sent for FSL analysis within 72 hours from the date of seizure. By relying on ‘Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab and another’ 2008 (3) R.C.R (Criminal) 633, the learned counsel contended that these guidelines in the Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.03.1988 should be substantially complied with, but in present case same has not been complied, which has made prosecution case vulnerable and untrustworthy. Learned counsel for appellant urged that learned trial Court failed to appreciate these aspects properly and fell in error in believing the prosecution case. 14. Learned counsel for appellant urged that learned trial Court failed to appreciate these aspects properly and fell in error in believing the prosecution case. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that in present case neither any independent witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery nor any plausible explanation has been tendered by the investigating officer to indicate that any earnest effort was made to join witness from public. This failure on the part of the investigating officer at the time of recovery creates a dent in the prosecution case. Learned counsel stated that witnesses are also not clear as how the alleged contraband was quantified. The ruqa (Ex.PW-5/A) mentions that arrangement for weighing the contraband was made, whereas Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5) states that weighing machine was in his investigating bag. This discrepancy goes to the root of the prosecution case. Further, special report of this case was delivered to learned Magistrate after delay of more than one day and recovery memo does not bear signature of the appellant. All these infirmities point towards false implication of the appellant in the case. While quoting the observations made in ‘Mohanlal Vs. State of Punjab’ 2018 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 101, learned counsel submitted that in nature of reverse burden of proof, onus lie on the prosecution to demonstrate on face of it that investigation was fair, judicious with no circumstances that may raise doubts about its veracity. Obligation of proof beyond doubt take within its ambit fair investigation and in absence thereof, there can be no fair trial. The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate the investigating agency flouted the mandatory procedural safeguards in conducting investigation, thereby affecting a fair investigation and consequently, a trial 15. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel for appellant contended that it is the fundamental duty of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, material omissions and legal infirmities, as pointed above, have indeed rendered the prosecution case highly suspect. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate these material deficiencies in the case and erred in believing the prosecution while disbelieving the defence version of false implication. Based on these grounds, a prayer for acquittal of the appellant has been made by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 16. As opposed, learned State counsel has supported the findings of conviction and legality of the sentence. Based on these grounds, a prayer for acquittal of the appellant has been made by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 16. As opposed, learned State counsel has supported the findings of conviction and legality of the sentence. It is stated that compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act has been made throughout from the time of search and seizure of contraband from the appellant. The evidence shows that contraband was recovered from the envelop thrown on ground by the appellant from the pocket of his pant, on seeing the police party. Learned State counsel stated that present case is a case of chance recovery effected not from the ‘person of the appellant’ but from the envelop thrown on ground by him, therefore provisions of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted to the facts of the case. In support of his submissions referred to `Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat’ (2011) 1 SCC 609 , wherein it was held that in a case of personal search only, the provision of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with. Also referred to `Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana’ 2010 (3) SCC 746 , `Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana’ 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 702 and ‘State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar’ 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 1. 17. Learned State counsel further submitted that on inspection of the envelop, 120 grams of intoxicant powder Alprazolam was found, regarding which appellant-accused failed to produce any permit or licence. The case property was taken before the learned Magistrate who authenticated the same and passed the order (Ex.PW-5/D). There is compliance of provisions of Section 52-A of the Act. It is next stated by learned State counsel that in present case, link evidence is complete, commencing from seizure of contraband till its testing, which is supplemented by the testimonies of PWs and Chemical Examiner’s report (Ex.PZ), proving that contraband remained intact and safe throughout. The defence failed to impeach the evidence of prosecution and learned trial Court has rightly rejected the defence version. Learned State counsel further contended that delay in sending the sample to the office of Chemical Examiner, as such is of no consequence and referred to ‘Hardip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 97. The defence failed to impeach the evidence of prosecution and learned trial Court has rightly rejected the defence version. Learned State counsel further contended that delay in sending the sample to the office of Chemical Examiner, as such is of no consequence and referred to ‘Hardip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 97. In present case, learned State counsel submitted that delay in sending the sample has been cogently explained. 18. Learned State counsel while relying upon ‘Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2020 (2) SCC 563 , ‘Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh’ 2020 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 114, and ‘Raveen Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’ 2020 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 873 submitted that statements of witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are official witnesses unless the witnesses appear to be biased against the appellant-accused. The prosecution witnesses have consistently and impeccably supported the material allegations against the appellant-accused. It is submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and same be dismissed. 19. Having duly considered the submissions in the light of evidence, I hold that appeal must succeed for the reasons recorded hereinafter. 20. Law relating to degree of proof required in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in ‘Didar Singh @ Dara Vs. State of Punjab’, 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 337, in the following terms:- “20. Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, not only the very possession of the narcotics, drugs and psychotropic substances has been made an offence but severe punishment without exception has also been provided. The Act also provides for presumption of guilt emerging from possession of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In case of commercial quantity of the narcotics, drugs and psychotropic substances, the minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment besides minimum fine of Rupees one lac has been provided.” 21. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Noor Aga (supra) has held that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts on the prosecution, i.e., proof beyond all reasonable conduct is more onerous. A heightened scrutiny test would be necessary to be invoked. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Noor Aga (supra) has held that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts on the prosecution, i.e., proof beyond all reasonable conduct is more onerous. A heightened scrutiny test would be necessary to be invoked. It is so because whereas, on one hand, the Court must strive towards giving effect to the parliamentary object and intent in the light of the international conventions, but, on the other hand, it is also necessary to uphold the individual human rights and dignity as provided for under the UN Declaration of Human Rights by insisting upon scrupulous compliance of the provisions of the Act for the purpose of upholding the democratic values. It is necessary for giving effect to the concept of ‘wider civilization’. It is further observed that while deciding such cases, the Courts must always remind itself that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree of proof. Therefore, a higher degree of assurance would be necessary to convict an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 22. Coming to the facts of present case, on 01.01.2015, accused-appellant while walking was apprehended by chance in the area of Gowshalla Turning Point, Pathankot by police party headed by ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5). According to the prosecution version, on seeing police party, appellant took out envelop (plastic lifafa) from his pocket of the pant and threw it on the road. On suspicion, appellant was nabbed and polythene envelop was picked up and on checking, led to the recovery of 120 gram of intoxicant powder Alprazolam against the provisions of the Act. 23. Material prosecution witnesses, ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5), the investigating officer and HC Pawan Kumar (PW-2) recovery witness have deposed about recovery of contraband from the appellant, drawing of two samples of 100 gram each from the entire contraband, sealing of the sample parcels and residue powder at the spot and preparing documents in this regard. They also deposed that accused-appellant along with recovered contraband and documents were produced before SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1), who stated that he authenticated the entire proceedings and documentation carried by the investigating officer, ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5) in respect of recovery. They also deposed that accused-appellant along with recovered contraband and documents were produced before SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1), who stated that he authenticated the entire proceedings and documentation carried by the investigating officer, ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5) in respect of recovery. He also affixed his seal bearing impressions ‘SS’ on the case property and kept the case property under his supervision. He also deposed that on next day, he handed over the case property to ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5), the investigating officer alongwith inventory report (Ex.PW-1/B) and application (Ex.PW-1/C) for producing the same before learned Magistrate. Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5), the I.O. stated he produced the case property before learned Magistrate, who passed the authentication order (Ex.PW-5/D). 24. A material infirmity in this case is that investigating officer, ASI Surjit Raj (PW-5) did not comply with the provisions of Section 52-A (2) (c) of the Act, which provides drawing of sample before learned Magistrate. Evidence does not indicate that any representative sample was drawn before the learned Magistrate as mandated under Section 52-A (2) (c) of the Act. Application (Ex.PW-1/C ) and inventory report under Section 52-A (Ex.PW-1/B), moved by the investigating officer Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5) on 01.05.2015, does not indicate that any request was made before the learned Magistrate to draw sample and to take photographs of the seized article, neither the order dated 02.01.2015 (Ex.PW-5/D) passed on application (Ex.PW-1/B) provides that any representative sample was drawn in his presence or photographs of contraband were taken. The evidence of the witnesses indicates that the samples were drawn immediately after the seizure. 25. NDPS Act was amended in year 1989 and Section 52-A was incorporated, which reads as under:- “52-A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, speco, such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identing particulars of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of - (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs, substances or conveyances and certffring such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.” 26. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra) while speaking on Section 52-A (2) (c) observed as under:- “15. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra) while speaking on Section 52-A (2) (c) observed as under:- “15. It is manifest from Section 52-A (2) (c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A (4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure.” 27. In ‘Simarnjit Singh (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court while acquitting the accused relied upon Mohanlal (supra) and held that mandate of Section 52-A of the Act was not complied with, and made the following observations :- “10. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure.” 27. In ‘Simarnjit Singh (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court while acquitting the accused relied upon Mohanlal (supra) and held that mandate of Section 52-A of the Act was not complied with, and made the following observations :- “10. Hence, the act of PW-7 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohanlal. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution’s case that substance recovered was a contraband. 11. Hence, the case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments insofar as the present appellant is concerned and quash his conviction and sentence.” 28. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh’ 2023 SCC OnLine 862, while acquitting the accused, has observed that mandate of Section 52-A of the Act has to be complied with by observing that:-. “8. Before any proposed disposal/destruction mandate of Section 52A of the NPDS Act requires to be duly complied with starting with an application to that effect. A Court should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding the case. The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case to satisfi, the Court when such an issue arises for consideration. Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followed by recovery. One has to remember that the provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Non-production of physical evidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act). The procedure contemplated through the notification has an element of fair play such as the deposit of the seal, numbering the containers in seriatim wise and keeping them in lots preceded by compliance of the procedure for drawing samples.” 29. In essence, it is a case where no sample was drawn in the presence of Magistrate in compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the Act that was sent for analysis. In essence, it is a case where no sample was drawn in the presence of Magistrate in compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the Act that was sent for analysis. Learned State counsel was unable to deny this infirmity in the case of the prosecution. Further, no contrary view was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned State counsel suggesting a different perspective than the one observed in the precedents cited by the defence side. The contention of the learned State counsel that authentication order (Ex.PW-5/D), passed by learned Magistrate demonstrates compliance of provisions of Section 52-A of the Act, cannot be countenanced in the given facts, as in this case, appellant has not only challenged the seizure but also contested the investigation proceedings citing non-drawing of sample before learned Magistrate as mandated by the provisions of Section 52-A (2) (c) of the Act. The failure to adhere to the prescribed elementary procedure, specifically the drawing of a sample from   the seized product from the accused, raised substantial doubts and shatters the foundational strength of the prosecution’s claim that the recovered substance was contraband. Learned trial Court failed to notice this material infirmity in the case of the prosecution and fell into grave error, in recording conviction to the appellant. Rather, benefit of same should have gone to the appellant. 30. Before, I advert to the plea of non-compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the Act, it is desirable to deal with the manner of recovery of contraband from the appellant. A poser before this Court is whether the packet recovered by police party, be considered the same packet, allegedly thrown by the appellant? According to recovery witnesses (PW-5 & PW-2), appellant was at a distance of approximately 15/20 paces, when he noticed police party, and allegedly threw a white envelop (lifafa) from his pocket. According to Pawan Kumar, HC (PW-2), appellant was taken to place where he had thrown the packet, Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5) lifted the packet and on search, intoxicant powder was recovered. PW-5 deposed that appellant was nabbed and packet thrown by him was picked up. However, none of the PWs deposed that upon pointing of the appellant packet was picked up. Evidently, it is not the case of prosecution that appellant himself lifted the thrown packet and handed over to police party. PW-5 deposed that appellant was nabbed and packet thrown by him was picked up. However, none of the PWs deposed that upon pointing of the appellant packet was picked up. Evidently, it is not the case of prosecution that appellant himself lifted the thrown packet and handed over to police party. It is again not the case of prosecution that appellant identified the envelop lifted by Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5) as the one he had thrown away. In ruqa (Ex.PW-5/A), it is mentioned that police party searched for the envelop from the place it was thrown. However, PWs have not clarified if there was only one envelop lying at the place. Fact that the police party searched for the envelop suggests that envelop in question was not prominently or singularly available there. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is held that prosecution has not been able to establish that envelop picked by the police was the same, that was allegedly thrown by the appellant. 31. Now adverting to the arguments regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. Taking the prosecution story as such, it is apposite to note that in present case recovery of contraband was not from the person of the appellant but from the envelop allegedly thrown by appellant on the ground. In such circumstances, when personal search of the appellant has not led to recovery of contraband, provisions of Section 50 of the Act are not applicable. In ‘Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra), it was held that in a case of personal search only, the provision of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with. Similarly, in Ajmer Singh (supra) search of bag held by accused was carried and it was held that compliance of Section 50 of the Act was not required as the search of a bag carried by accused on his shoulder does not fall in the interpretation of word ‘search of person’ and search conducted by the I.O. was held not illegal. Similar observations were made in Gurbax and Pawan (supra). Thus, in given facts of the case, plea of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not available to the appellant. 32. Insofar as the non-examining of independent witnesses is concerned, it is stated by the witnesses (PW-2 & PW-5) that they tried to join independent witnesses but nobody came forward. Thus, in given facts of the case, plea of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not available to the appellant. 32. Insofar as the non-examining of independent witnesses is concerned, it is stated by the witnesses (PW-2 & PW-5) that they tried to join independent witnesses but nobody came forward. Pawan Kumar, HC (PW-2), recovery witness stated that name and addresses of independent witnesses were not recorded in writing nor any action was taken against them on their refusal. On the contrary, Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5), the investigating officer stated that one person namely, Mangal Singh was contacted but he refused to join but no action was taken against them. 33. It is settled that non-examination of an independent witness is not per se fatal to case of the prosecution, Further, there is no absolute command of law that police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion (as held in Kashmiri Lal Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 259). Yet, both aspects, non-joining and non-examination of independent witness gains relevance and importance in case where other available material on record creates suspicion as regard to the credibility of case of prosecution. Such an omission (non-joining) casts an added duty on the Courts to adopt a greater degree of care while scrutinizing the testimonies of the police officials. Learned trial Court observed that non-examination of an independent witness was not fatal to the prosecution case since testimonies of official witnesses were found reliable. The perusal of evidence does not indicate that any earnest effort was made to join independent witness. In my judgment, association of public witness in such like recoveries cannot be undermined so as to attach fairness to the recovery proceedings being done at the spot. In present case, where compliance of material provisions of drawing of samples by the Magistrate in terms of Section 52-A (2) (c) was not made, non-examination of public witnesses also gains relevance and importance. Consequently, the reliance placed by the learned State counsel in Surinder Kumar (supra) is not applicable being distinguishable. In aforesaid case, here was specific observation that witness (PW-1) has made an effort to join public witness. Similarly, in Rizwan Khan (supra) public witness had turned hostile. Thus, cited cases are governed by their individual facts being not parallel to the present case. In aforesaid case, here was specific observation that witness (PW-1) has made an effort to join public witness. Similarly, in Rizwan Khan (supra) public witness had turned hostile. Thus, cited cases are governed by their individual facts being not parallel to the present case. Here in present case, as noticed above, no effort was apparently made to join any witness from public. HC Pawan Kumar (PW-2), recovery witness stated that name and addresses of independent witnesses were not recorded in writing nor were any action taken against them on their refusal. On the contrary, Surjit Raj, ASI (PW-5), the investigating officer stated that one person namely, Mangal Singh was contacted but he refused to join, but no action was taken against them. The name of Mangal Singh is not mentioned in any document prepared by the I.O. at the spot. This suggests that an afterthought version has been given by the I.O. just to cover up his inaction of non-joining of independent witness in the investigation proceedings. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Karishan Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh’ 2017 AIR (SC) 3751 held that the failure of the I.O. to associate an independent witness at the time of recovery creates a dent in the case of the prosecution. In ‘Gorakh Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar’ 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 108, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, while acquitting the accused held that case of prosecution cannot be entirely based upon the statements of official witnesses when no independent witness has been joined in the investigation. The learned trial Court did not take into consideration, this material aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it fell into grave error, in recording conviction, and awarding sentence, to the appellant. 34. There is another infirmity in the case of prosecution. The seizure memos (Ex.PW-2/A) and (Ex.PW-1/A) are not attested by the appellant. No reason has been assigned as to why the appellant was not made to attest the recovery memos, material documents showing the recovery of contraband from the appellant-accused. To my mind, this omission coupled with other infirmities has led assurance to the defence version of his false complicity in the case. 35. Insofar as statement of the witnesses regarding the availability of weighing machine, is concerned, they are consistent and coherent. According to their accounts, the machine was in the investigating kit of the I.O. 36. To my mind, this omission coupled with other infirmities has led assurance to the defence version of his false complicity in the case. 35. Insofar as statement of the witnesses regarding the availability of weighing machine, is concerned, they are consistent and coherent. According to their accounts, the machine was in the investigating kit of the I.O. 36. At this juncture, let me deal with appellant’s plea of delay of 12 days in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner. The recovery is dated 01.01.2015 and according to the statement of PHC Gurdip Singh (PW-4), he handed over sample parcel on 05.01.2015 but could not deposit the same as Clerk was on leave and he re-deposited the sample with SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1) on 06.01.2015. According to HC Pawan Kumar (PW-2) on 12.01.2015, the sample parcel was handed to him for deposit in the office of Chemical Examiner and he deposited the same in the office of Chemical Examiner on 13.01.2015 and handed the receipt of deposit to SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1). 37. A representative sample of any contraband after its seizure and deposit in Malkhana or with concerned SHO is required to be sent to Chemical Examiner within 72 hours as per the instructions issued vide Standing Order No.1 of 1988, dated 15.03.1988 issued by Narcotics Control Bureau. The sanctity of the instructions came up for consideration in Noor Aga (supra) wherein it was observed as under:- “Logical corollary of these discussions is that the guidelines such as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon for so that sanctity of physical evidence in such cases remains intact. Clearly, there has been no substantial compliance of the guidelines by the investigating authority which leads to drawing of an adverse inference against them to the effect that had such evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the prosecution.” 38. The investigating officer is obliged to follow the procedural safeguards as provided in the instructions as long as they do not override the provisions of the Act and supplement the procedural protection given in the Act. In ‘State of Punjab Vs. The investigating officer is obliged to follow the procedural safeguards as provided in the instructions as long as they do not override the provisions of the Act and supplement the procedural protection given in the Act. In ‘State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh’ (1999) 6 SCC 172 , it was stated: “It must be borne in mind that severer the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed.” 39. This Court in ‘Malkiat Singh @ Kala Vs. State of Punjab’ 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 353, while relying upon the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh’ 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 58, with regard to delay in sending the samples to Chemical Examiner, observed that:- “11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that though the alleged recovery was effected on 03.07.1997, yet the samples were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 08.07.1997 and, thus, the delay of 5 days, in sending the same to the office of the Chemical Examiner, remained unexplained and, as such the possibility of tampering with the same, until the same reached the Laboratory, could not be ruled out. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished, as to why the samples were not sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, for about 05 days. Had any explanation been furnished, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof but in the absence of any explanation, having been furnished, in this regard, the Court cannot coin any of its own. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611 (P&H), there was a delay of 14 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, it was held that the possibility of tampering with the sample, could not be ruled out, and the link evidence was incomplete. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted, in that case. In ‘State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh’ 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 58 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 521 (SC)., the contraband remained in the Malkhana for 20 days. The malkhana register was not produced, to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana, till the sample was handed over to the Constable. In these circumstances, in the aforesaid case, the appellant was acquitted. The malkhana register was not produced, to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana, till the sample was handed over to the Constable. In these circumstances, in the aforesaid case, the appellant was acquitted. In Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 452 (P&H), the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 72 hours, the seal remained with the police official, and had not been handed over to any independent witness. Under these circumstances, it was held that this circumstance would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the prosecution could lead other independent evidence, to prove that none tampered with the sample, till it reached the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The other evidence, produced by the prosecution, in this case, to prove the link evidence, is not only deficient, but also unreliable. In the instant case, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The delay of 05 days, in sending the samples to the office of the Chemical Examiner, and non-strict proof by the prosecution, that the same was not tampered with, till it was deposited, in that office, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being correct, is accepted.” 40. As noticed above, SHO Sukhjinder Singh (PW-1) has not furnished any explanation for the delay of more than 3 days in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner after 05.01.2015. He resent the sample on 12.01.2015. If any explanation had been furnished by the witness, the matter would have been considered in light thereof. However, in absence of any explanation of delay of 7 days (in second attempt) in sending the samples to the office of Chemical Examiner, possibility of tampering of case property and misuse of it cannot be ruled out, in such circumstances. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, as noted above, the observations made in Hardip Singh (supra) cannot be taken as parallel to this case as in aforesaid case, delay of 40 days in sending the sample to Chemical Examiner was held not fatal, where seals were found intact on the sample parcel when handed over to Chemical Examiner. In the facts, where compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 52-A has not been made, the delay in sending the sample to Chemical Examiner assumes importance and is certainly fatal to the prosecution. 41. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by bringing cogent and qualitative evidence. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, stricter the degree of proof. Under the NDPS Act, the extent of burden to prove the foundational facts on the prosecution are more onerous for such type of cases, a higher degree of assurance thus would be necessary to convict a person under the NDPS Act. 42. In view of the discussion above and the cumulative effect of the infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant-accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the inadequacies and infirmities as discussed hereinabove, in the case of prosecution and fell in error in holding the appellant guilty. 43. No other argument was urged. 44. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.03.2016/10.03.2016 passed by Judge, Special Court, Pathankot, is hereby set aside. 45. The appellant is on bail on account of suspension of his sentence vide order dated 01.02.2019 passed by Coordinate Bench. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 1973, appellant is directed to execute bonds within a period of 30 days from receiving the certified copy of this judgment, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/successor Court, which shall remain in force for six months in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Copy of this judgment along with trial Court record be sent forthwith to learned trial Court. A copy of judgment, if applied for, be made available to the appellant. The case property, if any, may be dealt with as per rules after expiry of period of limitation of filing the appeal. 46. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.