JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused against judgment dated 31.1.2015 passed by the Special Judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth ‘the NDPS Act’), Jagdalpur in Special Case No.7 of 2014, whereby the accused/Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rupees One Lakh, in default of payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 28.7.2014 Sub-Inspector of Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar, namely, Vimal Vatti (PW10) received information from an informant that one person keeping Ganja in Maruti 800 Car bearing registration No.CG 04 B 2472 was coming from Bajawand to Jagdalpur. He prepared Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama (Ex.P2). In compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act the information was forwarded to the higher officers vide Ex.P3. On completion of other formalities, he reached the spot along with other staff members. The Maruti 800 Car was stopped. The said car was being driven by the Appellant. After giving him a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, his personal search was made by Sub-Inspector Vimal Vatti (PW10) in which nothing was found. Thereafter, the car was searched in which 2 airbags and 2 small bags were found which contained contraband Ganja. In one airbag 8 kgs. Ganja and in the other airbag 12 kgs. Ganja was found. In one small bag 4 kgs. Ganja and in the other small bag 2 kgs. Ganja was found. Total 26 kgs. Ganja was found in total 4 bags. The same was recovered vide Ex.P16. The recovered Ganja was mixed and thereafter total 8 sample packets, namely, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 each containing 50 grams of Ganja were prepared. All the sample packets were sealed and a specimen seal panchnama (Ex.P20) was prepared. The recovered material was seized. On completion of other formalities on the spot, Sub-Inspector Vimal Vatti (PW10) returned to Police Station Nagarnar and deposited all the seized articles in the Malkhana of the police station. Acknowledgment of the deposit of the seized articles is Ex.P36C. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P38) was also recorded. Information of the entire proceedings was sent to the higher officer vide Ex.P6. On completion of other formalities on the spot, Sub-Inspector Vimal Vatti (PW10) returned to Police Station Nagarnar and deposited all the seized articles in the Malkhana of the police station. Acknowledgment of the deposit of the seized articles is Ex.P36C. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P38) was also recorded. Information of the entire proceedings was sent to the higher officer vide Ex.P6. 4 sample packets, which were marked as A1, B1, C1 and D1, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination. Report of the FSL is Ex.P41. The FSL found the substance to be Ganja. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed against the Appellant. To rope in the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt. No witness was examined in defence. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the instant appeal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence on record the Trial Court convicted the Appellant. The prosecution has totally failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It was further argued that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with. The Malkhana Register (Ex.P27) shows that total 8 sample packets were deposited in the Malkhana, but, those deposited packets were marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 is not mentioned in the Malkhana Register. Likewise, there is entry in the Malkhana Register regarding sending of 4 sample packets to the FSL for examination, but, those packets were marked as A1, B1, C1 and D1 is not mentioned in the said register. Therefore, it creates a doubt whether the 8 packets deposited in the Malkhana were marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 and whether the 4 sample packets sent to the FSL were marked as A1, B1, C1 and D1. It was further contended that in this case first the Ganja recovered from the 4 bags were mixed and thereafter total 8 sample packets were prepared, but, how the marking of the sample packets as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 was done is not clear. It was further contended that in this case first the Ganja recovered from the 4 bags were mixed and thereafter total 8 sample packets were prepared, but, how the marking of the sample packets as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 was done is not clear. This also creates a serious doubt. According to the Learned Counsel, Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.3.1988 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau and Standing Order No.1/89 dated 13.6.1989 issued under subsection (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India have not been followed while preparing the sample packets. Reliance was placed on a judgment of High Court of Delhi reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2080 (Amani Fidel Chris v. Narcotics Control Bureau). Reliance was also placed on another judgment passed by High Court of Delhi reported in 2012 (130) DRJ 471 (Basant Rai v. State). 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant. 5. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and minutely perused the entire evidence available on record both oral and documentary. 6. Undisputedly, independent witnesses of the seizure, namely, Baijnath (PW4) and Narsingh (PW5) have not supported the case of the prosecution. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the statement of Sub-Inspector Vimal Vatti (PW10) who investigated into the offence in question and that of other witnesses, namely, Mangal Ram (PW1) who weighed the recovered Ganja, Virendra Singh (PW2) who was Head Constable of the office of City Superintendent of Police, Jagdalpur and who received the correspondence done in compliance of Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act, Patwari Ravi Kiran (PW3) who prepared the spot map, Constable Gendlal (PW6) who handed over the aforesaid correspondence in the office of the City Superintendent of Police, Head Constable/Malkhana Moharrir Jhumuklal (PW7), Inspector A.K. Khan (PW8) who recorded the First Information Report, Omprakash (PW9) who was one of the members of the search party and the person who deposited the sample packets in the FSL. 7. The first contention of Learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with. 7. The first contention of Learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with. Undisputedly, Vimal Vatti (PW10) was not the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Police Station Nagarnar and was a Sub-Inspector only. The Station House Officer of Police Station Nagarnar was Inspector A.K. Khan (PW8). The statement of Vimal Vatti (PW10) and the documents prepared by him, especially the specimen seal panchnama (Ex.P20) reveal that the seal, which was affixed on the sample packets and other bags, was of Police Station Nagarnar. The FSL Report (Ex.P41) also shows that the sample packets A1, B1, C1 and D1 were received by them whereon the seal affixed was of P.S. Nagarnar. It makes clear that after making the seal of P.S. Nagarnar on the spot, no further seal of the S.H.O. of P.S. Nagarnar was affixed on the sample packets and other bags. Section 55 of the NDPS Act runs 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-incharge of the police station.” 8. A careful perusal of Section 55 of the NDPS Act clearly goes to show that Section 55 requires that the officer-in-charge of the police station, i.e., Inspector/Station House Officer A.K. Khan (PW8) in the instant case, was to seal the sample with his own seal. But, this has not been done. No explanation has also come from the prosecution in this regard as to why the officer-in-charge/Station House Officer A.K. Khan (PW8) did not affix his own seal as required under Section 55 of the NDPS Act before depositing the seized articles in the Malkhana. Thus, a clear violation of Section 55 of the NDPS Act appears in this case. 9. No explanation has also come from the prosecution in this regard as to why the officer-in-charge/Station House Officer A.K. Khan (PW8) did not affix his own seal as required under Section 55 of the NDPS Act before depositing the seized articles in the Malkhana. Thus, a clear violation of Section 55 of the NDPS Act appears in this case. 9. The next contention of Learned Counsel for the Appellant was that at the time of depositing the seized articles in the Malkhana no entries were made by the Malkhana Moharrir to show that the sample packets deposited in the Malkhana were marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 and the sample packets marked with A1, B1, C1 and D1 were taken out from the Malkhana and sent to the FSL for examination. 10. The entries of the Malkhana Register (Ex.P27) clearly show that 8 sample packets were deposited in the Malkhana on 28.7.2014 and 4 sample packets were sent to the FSL, Raipur on 30.7.2014. But, there is no entry in the Malkhana Register that the sample packets deposited in the Malkhana on 28.7.2014 were marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 and the 4 sample packets sent to the FSL on 30.7.2014 were marked as A1, B1, C1 and D1. No separate acknowledgment has been prepared by the Malkhana Moharrir with regard to deposit of the seized articles in the Malkhana. However, there is only a mention of receiving of the seized articles in the seizure memo (Ex.P21). Though the memo (Ex.P39) vide which the 4 sample packets were sent to the FSL shows that those 4 packets were marked as A1, B1, C1 and D1, the entries of the Malkhana Register do not show that the packets deposited in the Malkhana were marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 and the 4 packets which were sent to the FSL were marked as A1, B1, C1 and D1. Therefore, a serious doubt arises whether the sample packets deposited in the Malkhana were the packets prepared on the spot and whether the packets sent to the FSL for examination were the packets taken out from the Malkhana itself. 11. Therefore, a serious doubt arises whether the sample packets deposited in the Malkhana were the packets prepared on the spot and whether the packets sent to the FSL for examination were the packets taken out from the Malkhana itself. 11. The last contention of Learned Counsel for the Appellant was that in this case the prosecution has also not complied with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In this regard, a careful perusal of the evidence available on record shows that the total quantity of 26 kgs. of Ganja was found in total 4 bags containing different quantities of Ganja (8 kgs. + 12 kgs. + 4 kgs. + 2 kgs. = 26 kgs.). As per the entries of the Mixing ( Samras) Panchnama (Ex.P18), which was prepared at 15:50 hours, the entire quantity of contraband Ganja was taken out from total 4 bags and the entire recovered Ganja was mixed and thereafter at 16:40 hours total 8 sample packets each containing 50 grams were prepared and marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2. 12. In Amani Fidel Chris (supra), High Court of Delhi observed and held as under: “13. The manner of drawing a sample of narcotics has been laid down in Standing Order 1/88 dated 15.03.1988 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau. The relevant paras of the Standing Order care reproduced as under:- “ 1.5 Place and time of drawal of sample. - Samples from the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances seized, must be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search (Panch) witnesses and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. 1.6 Quantity of different drugs required in the sample – The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test should be 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except in the cases of Opium, Ganja and Charas/Hashish where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities should be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers should be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample in duplicate is drawn. The same quantities should be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers should be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample in duplicate is drawn. 1.7 Number of samples to be drawn in each seizure case - (a) In the case of seizure of single package/container one sample in duplicate is to be drawn. Normally it is advisable to draw one sample in duplicate from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. (b) However, when the package/container seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the contents of each package give identical results on colour test by U.N. kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respect/the packages/container may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 packages/containers may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages such packages/ containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample in duplicate may be drawn. (c) Where after making such lots, in the case of Hashish and Ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remains, and in case of other drugs less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. (d) If it is 5 or more in case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in case of Ganja and Hashish, one more sample in duplicate may be drawn for such remainder package/containers. (e) While drawing one sample in duplicate from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative drug in equal quantity is taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot.” (emphasis added) 14. Pari materia with Standing Order 1/88 is the Standing Order No.1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued under subsection (1) of Section 52A of NDPS Act by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Section (II) provides for general procedure for sampling, storage and reads as under: - “ SECTION II – GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING, STORAGE ETC. 2.1 All drugs shall be properly classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2 All the packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Section (II) provides for general procedure for sampling, storage and reads as under: - “ SECTION II – GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING, STORAGE ETC. 2.1 All drugs shall be properly classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2 All the packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witness (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchanama drawn on the spot. 2.3 The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in cases of opium, ganja and charas (hasish) where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn. 2.4 In the case of Seizure of a single package/container, one sample (in duplicate) shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. 2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the content of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages/containers may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 packages/containers/except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6 Whereafter making such lots, in the case of hashish and ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain, and in the case of other drugs, less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching will be necessary and no sample need to be drawn. 2.7 If such remainders are more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such a reminder package/container. 2.7 If such remainders are more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such a reminder package/container. 2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative sample are in equal quantity is taken from a package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. 2.9 The sample in duplicate should be kept in heat sealed plastic bags as it is convenient and safe. The plastic bag container should be kept in a paper envelope which may be sealed properly. Such sealed envelope may be marked as original and duplicate. Both the envelopes should bear the S. No. of the package(s)/containers from which the sample has been drawn. The duplicate envelope containing the sample will also have a reference of the test memo. The seals should be legible. This envelope which should also be sealed and marked ‘secret-drug sample/Test memo’ is to be sent to the chemical laboratory concerned. 3.0 The Seizing officers of the Central Government Departments, viz., Customs, Central Excise, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Narcotics Control Bureau, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence etc. should dispatch samples of the seized drugs to one of the Laboratories of the Central Revenues Control Laboratory nearest to their office depending upon the availability of test facilities. The other Central Agencies like BSF, CBI and other Central Police Organisations may send such sample to the Director, Central Forensic Laboratory, New Delhi. All State Enforcement Agencies may send samples of seized drugs to the Director/Deputy Director/Assistant Director of their respective State Forensic Science Laboratory. 3.1 After sampling, detailed inventory of such packages/containers shall be prepared for being enclosed to the panchanama. Original wrappers shall also be preserved for evidentiary purposes.” (emphasis added) 16. A combined reading of paras of the Standing Orders would show that where more than one container/package is found, the respondent is required to draw a sample from each of the individual container/package and test each of the sample with the ‘field testing kit’. Original wrappers shall also be preserved for evidentiary purposes.” (emphasis added) 16. A combined reading of paras of the Standing Orders would show that where more than one container/package is found, the respondent is required to draw a sample from each of the individual container/package and test each of the sample with the ‘field testing kit’. It is further provided that if the container/ packages are identical in shape, size and weight then lots of 10 or 40 containers/packages may be prepared and thereafter representative samples from each container/package in a particular lot are to be drawn, mixed and sent for testing. 19. In the opinion of this court, the respondent ought to have adopted the procedure outlined in Para 2.4 of the Standing Order 1/89 [or para 1.7(a) of Standing Order 1/88] by drawing sample (in duplicate) from each of the 4 packets separately and then sending the samples for testing.” 13. In Basant Rai (supra), High Court of Delhi observed and held as under: “27. For example, if the 08 packets were allegedly recovered from the appellant and only two packets were having contraband substance and rest 6 packets did not have any contraband; though all may be of the same colour, when we mix the substances of all 8 packets into one or two; then definitely, the result would be of the total quantity and not of the two pieces. Therefore, the process adopted by the prosecution creates suspicion. In such a situation, as per settled law, the benefit thereof should go in favour of the accused. It does not matter the quantity. Proper procedure has to be followed, without that the results would be negative.” 14. In the light of above, on examination of the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the prosecution had first mixed the entire contraband Ganja kept in total 4 bags vide the mixing (samras) panchnama (Ex.P18) and thereafter prepared total 8 sample packets, namely, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2 each containing 50 grams of Ganja. The prosecution has not prepared duplicate sample packets from each of the recovered bags as contained in Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.3.1988 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau and Standing Order No.1/89 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 15. The prosecution has not prepared duplicate sample packets from each of the recovered bags as contained in Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.3.1988 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau and Standing Order No.1/89 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 15. Considering the entire material available on record and as discussed above, it is established that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with by the prosecution. It is also established that while preparing the sample packets the aforesaid two standing orders dated 15.3.1988 and 13.6.1989 have also not been complied with and the sample packets were prepared contrary to these standing orders. Further, the Malkhana Register (Ex.P27) also does not contain entries of deposit of sample packets marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1 and D2. There is also no entry in the Malkhana Register to show that the sample packets A1, B1, C1 and D1 were taken out from the Malkhana itself and sent to the FSL for examination. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, as discussed above, in considered view of this Court, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is not sustainable and he is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 16. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under challenge is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.