JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. The State has come up in appeal against the judgment passed by the Court of Special Sessions Judge (NDPS), Pithoragarh in Special Session Trial No. 01/2022 dated 05.10.2023, whereby the respondent-Chandra Ram, who was facing the trial for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution is that an FIR was registered against Chandra Ram, after recovery, on 17.10.2021. On this day, S.O.-Dinesh Ballabh, along with driver Manoj Kumar had left the Police Station Haja for Chowki Madkot area, and was busy in prevention of crime. During patrolling, he called Constable 353 Sanjay Singh Chauhan from the concerned police station and Constable 06 Rajendra Singh from chowki Madkot. Both the employees met him at Mandakini Bridge, Madkot. He, along with both these police personnel, were patrolling in the government vehicle and checking the vehicles for the suspicious person. While they were going from Madkot towards Seraghat, then about 3-4 km ahead, on Seraghat Road, near a poultry farm, a pickup vehicle was seen coming from Seraghat side. With the intention of checking, he got down from the vehicle and signalled the vehicle to stop with the help of the companion employees. Then the driver immediately stopped the vehicle, and got down from the vehicle and tried to run away, who was caught on the spot with the help of his companion policemen, and when the vehicle was checked, number - UK05 TA 2953 was written on the vehicle. Inside the vehicle, a wick-like black substance was found in a bag on the dashboard, which, when smelled, had a strong smell of hashish. When the companion policemen smelled it, they said that it was a strong smell of hashish, and in front of the vehicle, between the two seats, a weighing scale was kept in a plastic transparent box and one weight of 100 grams, one weight of 50 grams and one weight of 10 grams were recovered. When asked, the accused said that the drug found in his bag was hashish. When the arrested person was asked about his name and address, he told his name as Chandra Ram, son of Nain Ram, resident of village Tomik, Police Station Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh, currently residing at Devibagad Madkot Police Station Munsyari, District Pithoragarh, aged 42 years. When asked, the accused said that the drug found in his bag was hashish. When the arrested person was asked about his name and address, he told his name as Chandra Ram, son of Nain Ram, resident of village Tomik, Police Station Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh, currently residing at Devibagad Madkot Police Station Munsyari, District Pithoragarh, aged 42 years. Thereafter, the accused was made aware of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and was told that he can get his search done before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. On this, the accused told that the hashish recovered from his vehicle belonged to him, and apart from this he does not have any more hashish. was found in a bag on the dashboard, which, when smelled, had a strong smell of hashish. When the companion policemen smelled it, they said that it was a strong smell of hashish, and in front of the vehicle, between the two seats, a weighing scale was kept in a plastic transparent box and one weight of 100 grams, one weight of 50 grams and one weight of 10 grams were recovered. When asked, the accused said that the drug found in his bag was hashish. When the arrested person was asked about his name and address, he told his name as Chandra Ram, son of Nain Ram, resident of village Tomik, Police Station Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh, currently residing at Devibagad Madkot Police Station Munsyari, District Pithoragarh, aged 42 years. Thereafter, the accused was made aware of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and was told that he can get his search done before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. On this, the accused told that the hashish recovered from his vehicle belonged to him, and apart from this he does not have any more hashish. 3. The 100 grams sample material taken from the drug recovered, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, as per the orders of the Court. On 22.07.2022, charges were framed against the accused under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses: PW-1 SI Dinesh Ballabh PW-2 Constable 355 CP Sanjay Chauhan PW-3 HC 134 Vinod Chandra Adhikari PW-4 HCP 19 CP Girish Chandra PW-5 Shri Surendra Singh PW-6 SI Vikas Kumar 5. On 22.07.2022, charges were framed against the accused under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 4. The prosecution examined the following witnesses: PW-1 SI Dinesh Ballabh PW-2 Constable 355 CP Sanjay Chauhan PW-3 HC 134 Vinod Chandra Adhikari PW-4 HCP 19 CP Girish Chandra PW-5 Shri Surendra Singh PW-6 SI Vikas Kumar 5. On 19.08.2023, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which he denied that any hashish has been recovered from him. With respect to the car, he stated that the car he was driving was parked at Manoj’s house, and the police took the car from there. 6. The prosecution witness - PW-1 S.I. Dinesh Ballabh, PW-2 Constable 355 CP Sanjay Chauhan, PW-3 HC 134 Vinod Chandra Adhikari, PW-4 HCP 19 CP Girish Chandra, and PW-6 SI Vikas Kumar, who are the official witnesses, have been examined. 7. PW-5 Shri Surendra Singh was examined, who stated that he was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration number UK05 TA 2953. He had purchased this vehicle by taking a loan from the Bank. Last year he gave the vehicle to Chandra Ram (accused) to drive, who geot the vehicle seized in a theft case. After seizure of the vehicle, he suffered a lot of loss. He got the vehicle released, and gave it back to Chandra Ram, because neither did he know how to drive, nor was able to pay the installments. 8. The Court proceeded to examine the prosecution witness PW-1 S.I. Dinesh Ballabh, who stated in his examination-in-chief that “on 17.10.2021, he was posted as SHO in Police Station Munsiyari. On that day, he and Constable Manoj Kumar had left from Police Station at around 11:40 A.M. to maintain peace and prevent crime. He had called Constable Sanjay and Constable Rajendra from Chowki Madkot for patrolling. When they were patrolling on the Madkot-Seraghat road, a pick-up vehicle was seen coming from a poultry farm, about 3-4 kms from Madkot post. 9. As per PW-2 Constable Sanjay Chauhan, he stated in his cross-examination that on 17.10.2021, he was posted at Munsiyari Police Station. On that day, as per the order of the S.O., he had gone to Mandakini Bridge, Madkot, where the S.O. sir and other employees were already checking the incoming vehicles. From there, he went towards Seraghat to a place called Phaguva, near the poultry farm. On that day, as per the order of the S.O., he had gone to Mandakini Bridge, Madkot, where the S.O. sir and other employees were already checking the incoming vehicles. From there, he went towards Seraghat to a place called Phaguva, near the poultry farm. While checking, pickup vehicle bearing number UK05 TA 2553 was signaled to stop, and the driver of the said vehicle tried to run away and was caught on the spot. 10. The Trial Court further proceeded to examine Exhibit P-3, i.e. the Recovery Memo, in which, it is mentioned that “today on 17.10.2021, I (S.O. Dinesh Ballabh), along with driver Manoj Kumar, in government vehicle bearing number UK08 GA 0304, departed from the concerned police station through G.D. rapat no. 12 at 11:40 am to maintain law and order and to prevent crime in Chowki Madkot area. During patrolling, I called Constable 353 Sanjay Singh Chauhan from the concerned Police Station, and Constable 06 Rajendra Singh from Chowki Madkot. Both the officials met me at Mandakini Bridge, Madkot. I, along with both the personnel, were patrolling and checking suspicious persons and vehicles, when we were going from Madkot towards Sheraghat. On the basis of above analysis, the Court has considered, that the prosecution witness PW 1 S.I. Dinesh Ballabh, was posted as S.H.O., Munsiyari on the date of incident on 17.10.2021, and as per the document number 7Ka/17 i.e. copy of the rapat, he had actually departed to Pithoragarh for VIP duty on 17.10.2021 at 11:40 am. 11. There is contradiction in the version given by PW-1 S.I. Dinesh Ballabh, and the recovery report Exhibit P-3. On 17.10.2021, S.I. Dinesh Ballabh, while appearing as PW-1, stated that he had left with driver Manoj Kumar from the Police Station Haja in the government vehicle, at around 11:40 A.M. to maintain peace and prevent crime in Madkot post. However, as per the recovery report S.I. Dinesh Ballabh and driver Manoj Kumar had left to maintain peace and prevent crime in Jarayam. The contradiction in the recovery report, as well as in his evidence, created a doubt with respect to commission of the alleged offence by the accused Chandra Ram. 12. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to examine Section 57 of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows: “57. The contradiction in the recovery report, as well as in his evidence, created a doubt with respect to commission of the alleged offence by the accused Chandra Ram. 12. Thereafter, the Trial Court proceeded to examine Section 57 of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows: “57. Report of arrest and seizure - Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.” 13. With respect to compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, PW-1 S.I. Dinesh Ballabh had stated that he had given the information to the higher officials about the hashish recovered from the spot. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that the said information was given through phone, and no written information was given to the higher authorities. 14. PW-6 S.I. Vikas Kumar has also stated in his cross-examination that he did not find any written document of giving information to the higher officials in his investigation. On account of non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution version again becomes doubtful. 15. Further, the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 of the CrPC, had stated that he had gone to Jauljivi during the day. At that time the police had searched his house. He had gone to the poultry farm to buy chicken, and from there the police officials of Munsiyari Police Station brought him to the Police Station for interrogation, and a false case was registered against him. The car, which I used to drive, was parked in the house of Manoj, and the police took that car to the police station from the house of Manoj at 1 o’clock in the night. 16. Defense witness DW-1 Ganesh Ram has stated in his examination-in-chief that he has a poultry farm and a fish farm in Phaguva, Munsiyari. On 17.10.2021 at around 04:15 P.M, Chandra Ram had come to buy chicken in his vehicle bearing No. UK05 TA 2953. By the time he bought the chicken, police officials from Munsiyari had also come. The police officials searched Chandra Ram’s vehicle in my presence, from which nothing was found. After that the policemen caught Chandra Ram and took him in their vehicle towards Munsiyari. By the time he bought the chicken, police officials from Munsiyari had also come. The police officials searched Chandra Ram’s vehicle in my presence, from which nothing was found. After that the policemen caught Chandra Ram and took him in their vehicle towards Munsiyari. Before leaving, Chandra Ram had given his car keys to me, and asked me to take the car and leave it to his house. He further stated in his cross-examination that he had known Chandra Ram for about 3-4 years. There is a distance of 2 kms. between his house and Chandra Ram’s house. The police did not tell why they were taking Chandra Ram to the police station. 17. Defense witness DW-2 Manoj Ram had stated in his examination-in-chief that on 17.10.2021 Ganesh Ram the owner of poultry farm and a fish farm had parked the vehicle of Chandra Ram bearing No. UK05 TA 2953 at the house of Chandra Ram at around 05 o’clock in the evening. The wife of Chandra Ram asked me to take her to Munisyari, as police had taken Chandra Ram to Munisyari police station. We came back from Munsiyari at 09 o’clock in the night from the car of Chandra Ram, and I dropped Chandra Ram’s wife at their house, and from the said vehicle bearing No. UK05 TA 2953 I came back to my house and parked the vehicle in my house. After that I went to sleep. At 01 o’clock in the night Constable Rajendra Singh came to my house, and woke me up by calling on phone, and asked me to come outside and asked me to give the keys of the car. On denial to give car keys, he started threatening me, and threatened me that he will put even me behind bars. After that I gave the car keys to the police team, and the police officials took the car with them. 18. The plea taken by the defense was that these two witnesses were interested witnesses, and they had made these statements at the behest of Chandra Ram (accused). 19. After that I gave the car keys to the police team, and the police officials took the car with them. 18. The plea taken by the defense was that these two witnesses were interested witnesses, and they had made these statements at the behest of Chandra Ram (accused). 19. Finally, the Trial Court, based on the finding given with regard to contradiction in the evidence given by PW-1 S.I. Dinesh Ballabh, and the recovery report Exhibit P-3, coupled with non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, came to the conclusion that DW-1 Ganesh Ram and DW-2 Manoj Ram cannot be treated as interested witnesses, and it cannot be said that they had made their statements at the behest of Chandra Ram (accused). 20. In the above background, non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act has to be examined. This Court in the case of Hastra Devi v. State of Uttarakhand, (Criminal Jail Appeal No. 14/2016) was examining a case under the NDPS Act, where there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and coupled with the fact that no information was sent to the superior officials within 48 hours as per Section 57 of the NDPS Act, this Court had acquitted the accused. In paragraph no. 22, it was observed as under: “22. From the perusal of record, it depicts that neither there was a compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act., nor the information was sent to the superior officials within 48 hours as mandatory under Section 57 of NDPS Act. Thus, there is non-compliance of Sections 50 and 57 of NDPS Act. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court convicting & sentences the appellant under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act is liable to be set aside.” 21. The High Court of Delhi in the case of C.P. Vashist v. Ashfaq, (Criminal Appeal No. 176/1997), was examining the provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, and observed that the provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS Act were not mandatory, and they were directory in nature. The effect of non-compliance of Section 57 would have to be seen in the circumstances and evidence in each case separately. It has to be shown that such non-compliance has caused prejudice, and resulted in failure of justice. The effect of non-compliance of Section 57 would have to be seen in the circumstances and evidence in each case separately. It has to be shown that such non-compliance has caused prejudice, and resulted in failure of justice. The officers cannot totally ignore these provisions, and if there is no proper explanation for non-compliance, or where the officers totally ignore the provisions then it will definitely have an adverse effect on the prosecution case, and the Courts have to appreciate the evidence and the merits of the case bearing these aspects in view. 22. In the facts of the present case, there was contradiction in the evidence given by PW-1 S.I. Dinesh Ballabh, and the Recovery Memo - Exhibit P-3. Defense witnesses DW-1 Ganesh Ram and DW-2 Manoj Ram were not treated as interested witnesses, keeping in view that it was DW-2 Manoj Ram, who had taken the wife of Chandra Ram to Munsiyari, where police had taken him, and at 01:00 o’clock in the night Constable Rajendra Singh had come to his house, and had taken the keys of the car by threatening him. 23. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Hastra Devi (supra) and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of C.P. Vashist (supra) can be applied in the facts of the present case, where non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act would have an adverse effect on the case of the prosecution. 24. Since no information was given to the higher officials in writing, Chandra Ram (respondent herein) was acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The impugned judgment of acquittal does not require any interference. 25. The present Special Leave to Appeal, as well as the Government Appeal are, hereby, dismissed. 26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.