JUDGMENT : K. Babu, J. The appellants are the accused in SC No.728 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. Appellants in Crl.A.No.291 of 2019 are accused Nos.1 and 2, respectively. Appellant in Crl.A.No.438 of 2017 is accused No.3. The appellants have been convicted under Section 21(c) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution case :- Accused Nos. 1 to 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of trafficking of heroin and pursuant to the conspiracy accused No.3 demanded 400 grams of heroin from accused No.1, and accordingly, accused No.1 collected 400 grams of heroin and came to Kochuveli Railway Station, Thiruvanathapuram, on 16.12.2014 at 20.40 hours. Accused No.2 was waiting on the premises of the railway station for receiving accused No.1 as per the directions of accused No.3. While they were trying to leave the premises of the railway station, they were detained by the team led by the Intelligence Officer, NCB, Sub Zone, Kochi (PW1). The Detecting Officer seized the contraband substances from the possession of the accused. 3. The Intelligence Officer, NCB (PW10) completed the investigation and submitted charge before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The court took cognizance of the offence and framed charge against the accused. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereupon, the trial court proceeded with the trial. 5. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and proved Exts.P1 to P73, and MO1 to 16. 6. After the close of the trial, the Sessions Court convicted the accused for the offence alleged and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years each and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. 7. I have heard Sri. J.R.Prem Navaz and Sri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Vinu Raj, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the NCB. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence on the following grounds:- (1)The samples of the seized contraband were not drawn in the presence of the Magistrate, and the inventory of the seized contraband was not duly certified by the Magistrate; (2)The Detecting Officer ought not to have drawn the sample from the bulk quantity of the contraband substance seized at the scene of occurrence, and he should have drawn the sample in the presence of the Magistrate as provided in Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there is substantial compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the strict compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act need not be insisted in all cases. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution could produce the primary evidence regarding the possession of the contraband substance by the accused before the court. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the oral evidence of the Detecting Officer and the other witnesses who supported the prosecution corroborated by the contemporaneous documents prepared at the scene of occurrence and the Chemical Examiners Report established the case of the prosecution. 10. The Intelligence Officer, NCB, Sub Zone, Kochi, (PW1) effected the seizure on 16.12.2014 at 20.40 hours on the premises of the Kochuveli Railway Station, Thiruvananthapuram, based on the prior information received from reliable sources. PW1 gave evidence in support of the prosecution case. He deposed that on the relevant day he got a tip off over phone as to the trafficking of drugs by accused No.1. He had received information regarding the identifying features of the man, who trafficked the drugs by train. He had specific information that accused No.1 was carrying 400 grams of heroin for the purpose of delivery to accused No.2. PW1 stated that accused No1 was travelling in G-12 coach of Lokamanya Tilak - Kochuveli Garib Rath Express. He would depose that the train reached Kochuveli at 20.40 hours on 16.12.2014. He had arranged surveillance on the premises of the railway station. PW1 deposed that a person having the features narrated by the informant to him deboarded the train from coach No.G-12 and rushed towards the exist gate. He was carrying a shoulder bag and a plastic cover with label “max”. PW1 and the team followed him. At the entrance of the station a person was waiting for him on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-22-3605. PW1 sat on the pillion of the motorcycle. When they were about to leave they were intercepted. Upon questioning they disclosed their identity. 11. The Detecting Officer (PW1) took the persons detained to the waiting hall. On the subsequent search, the bag contained a tiffin box, wherein the detecting officer found a brown coloured powder, which was tested with the help of drug detector kit. The test turned positive. PW1 found that the substance seized was heroin. Upon questioning they disclosed their identity. 11. The Detecting Officer (PW1) took the persons detained to the waiting hall. On the subsequent search, the bag contained a tiffin box, wherein the detecting officer found a brown coloured powder, which was tested with the help of drug detector kit. The test turned positive. PW1 found that the substance seized was heroin. He weighed the whole quantity of heroin. He found the same weighing 395 grams. He had drawn two samples of 5 grams each from the brown coloured powder, which was sealed and labeled properly and marked with letters S1 and S2. The remaining 385 grams of heroin was packed in a polythene cover and sealed. PW1 identified accused Nos.1 and 2 in the box. He also identified MOs 1 and 2. He had prepared Ext.P15 seizure mahazar at the scene of occurrence. 12. PW2 is an independent witness, who gave evidence in support of the arrest and seizure of accused Nos.1 and 2. PW3 testified that Ext.P15 mahazar was prepared evidencing the search in the residence of accused No.2. PW9 was the Superintendent of NCB, Cochin Sub Zone, before whom PW1 submitted Ext.P1 report regarding the information. PW10 deposed that he conducted the investigation in the matter and submitted the final report. 13. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which vitiates the entire proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the Detecting Officer should have forwarded the contraband substance to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, who shall prepare an inventory of the same. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the samples ought to have been taken in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the judgments in Union of India v. Mohanlal [ (2016) 3 SCC 379 ], Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023 Live Law (SC) 570), Mangilal V. The State of Madhya Pradesh(2023 LiveLaw (SC)549: 2023 INSC 634 ) and Yusuf @ Asif v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328) in support of their contention. 14. The seizure was effected on the premises of Kochuveli railway station on 16.12.2014 at 20.40 hours. Admittedly, the detecting officer had drawn sample at the waiting hall attached to the railway-station. 14. The seizure was effected on the premises of Kochuveli railway station on 16.12.2014 at 20.40 hours. Admittedly, the detecting officer had drawn sample at the waiting hall attached to the railway-station. It is further admitted that the detecting officer did not forward the contraband substance as provided under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 15. As per sub-section (2) of Section 52A, upon seizure of the contraband substance, the detecting officer should forward the contraband to the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station or the officer empowered under Section 53, as the case may be, who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated therein and make an application to the Magistrate to certify the correctness of the inventory, certify the truthfulness of the photographs of such drugs or substances, draw representative samples in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate and certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. As per sub-section (3) of Section 52A, when such an application is filed, the Magistrate shall allow the same. 16. The intention of the legislature by incorporating Section 52A in the NDPS Act is to see that the process of drawing the sample 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. Sub-section (4) of Section 52A says that every court trying an offence under the NDPS Act shall treat the inventory, the photographs of the contraband substance and the list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate as primary evidence in respect of such offence. 17. In Mohanlal (supra), the Apex Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 52-A of the Act. In Mohanlal the Supreme held thus:- “15. It is manifest from S.52A(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 S.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. 16. Sub-section (3) of S.52A 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 S.52A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with subsection (2) and (3) of S.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. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure. 18. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provision governing taking of samples and the standing order issued by the Central Government is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re - examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction.” (emphasis supplied) 18. The Central Government would, therefore, do well, to re - examine the matter and take suitable steps in the above direction.” (emphasis supplied) 18. In Mohanlal (supra), the Apex Court observed that it is manifest that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 as the case may be, who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband and then to make an application to the Magistrate to get its correctness certified. 19. In Bothilal v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (2023 SCC OnLine SC 498) while considering a case where the detecting officer had drawn samples from the contraband at the place of seizure without following provisions of Section 52A of the Act, following Mohanlal (supra) the Supreme Court held that the act of drawing sample at the time of seizure not in conformity with the law declared in Mohanlal creates serious doubt about the prosecution case that the substance recovered was contraband. 20 . Following Mohanlal, in Simarnjit Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that the drawing of sample by the detecting officer at the time of seizure and not following the statutory provision under Section 52A creates serious doubt about the prosecution case that the substance seized was a contraband. 21. In Yusuf @ Asif (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that once there is no primary evidence obtained as provided under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the trial as a whole stands vitiated. 22. In the present case, the samples were drawn at the scene of occurrence itself by the detecting officer. This is not in conformity with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal. The prosecution relied on Ext.P73 chemical analysis report to establish that the contraband seized at the scene of occurrence was heroin. The samples drawn by the detecting officer at the scene of occurrence formed the foundation of Ext.P73 chemical analysis report. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal the act of drawing sample at the time of seizure not in conformity with Section 52A creates serious doubt about the prosecution case that the substance recovered was contraband. Therefore, Ext.P73 report prepared by the FSL has no evidentiary value. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal the act of drawing sample at the time of seizure not in conformity with Section 52A creates serious doubt about the prosecution case that the substance recovered was contraband. Therefore, Ext.P73 report prepared by the FSL has no evidentiary value. The Supreme Court in Vijay Pandey v. State of UP [2019 (3) KLT OnLIne 3028 (SC)] held that mere production of the laboratory report that sample tested was narcotics cannot be a conclusive proof by itself, and that the prosecution has to prove that the sample tested was the sample seized from the place of occurrence. 23. The resultant conclusion is that the prosecution failed to establish that what was seized from the possession of the accused was not heroin. The prosecution failed to establish the link connecting the accused with the contraband seized. 24. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge overlooking these vital aspects of the matter cannot be sustained. Therefore, the accused are found not guilty of the offence alleged. They are acquitted of the offence alleged. They are set at liberty. 25. The appellants are confined in Prison. The Registry shall forthwith communicate the judgment to the Superintendent of the Central Prison concerned. The Superintendent shall release the appellants if their custody is not required in any other cases. The Criminal Appeals are allowed as above.