JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Verma, J Heard. 1. Since all the appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 15/03/2023 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 88/2018 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.) and since common question of fact and law is involved in all the appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C are against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15/03/2023 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 88/2018 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Raipur (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Appellant Conviction Sentences Appellant-Kondru U/s 20(b) (ii) (c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- Appellant-Surjeet Singh U/s 20(b) (ii) (c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- Appellant-Avtar Singh U/s 20(b) (ii) (c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- Appellant-Vishnu Bhadra U/s 29 read with Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- Appellant-Premanand U/s 29 read with Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.06.2018 at 11:00 am, K.V.L. Narasimham, D.R.I. Office of Intelligence Officer, Nagpur (henceforth ‘the IO’) got an information from the informer that a truck bearing serial number - C.G. -07/CA-5727 transporting Ganja from Odisha to Milan. He gave the above information to his senior officer Mr. A.K. Pandit in writing, who gave the said information over phone to Mrs. Vandana, Deputy Director, D.R.I. and, after being verbally ordered by Mrs. Vandana, to take action, A.K. Pandit, Superintendent, CGST, IO- K.V.L. Narasimham and Chandraparakash along with staff proceeded to Raipur. After reaching, they asked two independent witnesses i.e. Shobhraj @ Som Sonwani and Gowrishankar Jangde to become witnesses. They were informed about the information of the informant. Subsequently, at about 09:30 pm, truck No. CG-07/CA-5727 was intercepted. The truck driver was informed about the information of informant and the witnesses were introduced to him. After reaching, they asked two independent witnesses i.e. Shobhraj @ Som Sonwani and Gowrishankar Jangde to become witnesses. They were informed about the information of the informant. Subsequently, at about 09:30 pm, truck No. CG-07/CA-5727 was intercepted. The truck driver was informed about the information of informant and the witnesses were introduced to him. The truck driver named his name as K. Dharmarav and the persons sitting inside the truck were named as Surjeet Singh Randhawa and Avtar Singh. 4. On being inquiry made, the persons told them about transporting of dry coconut. On being asked about transportation documents, they stated non-availability of documents. When they were asked about transportation of Ganja, initially they denied but after interrogation, they admitted about transportation of Ganja. They stated that the Ganja has been kept in HDPE (Plastic Bag) beneath the bags of coconut. Subsequently, the alleged Cargo truck was brought to CGST Office, CGST Building, Dhamtari, Raipur and labors were called for unloading the material. On Search HDPE (plastic Bags) were found in the truck and the pungent smell was coming out of those bags. Subsequently, the truck was taken to Weigh Bridge (Dharmkata), Dhamtari Road, Raipur. In front of Panch, appellants and GST Officer, the said truck was weighted to 17355 Kg. The weight of HDPE (Plastic Bags) was found to 6545 Kgs as per the computerized slip in relation to which Ex.P/3 is a document. 5. After completing the above proceeding, they came back to CGST Building and the HDPE (Plastic Bags) were counted in front of Panchas and appellants, which were 170 in numbers. The bags were sealed. On the basis of the informant’s information received by the Investigation Officer and the confession of the three accused, the said substance weighing 6545 Kgs appeared to be Ganja and under the NDPS Act, 1985 the same were seized. On 24.06.2018, it was given to In-charge of CGST, Abhishek Pandey, Inspector (Preventive) for safekeeping the bags, in relation to which a handover note (Ex.P/4) was prepared. Subsequently, the vehicle was seized. The entire proceedings were recorded in the Panchnama, which was read over to the Panchas and the accused/appellants. Panchnama (Ex.P/1) was prepared. 6. On 24/06/2018, statements of the above three appellants were recorded and subsequently, seizure report of Ganja and truck were given to Shri A.K. Pandit, Superintendent, CGST on 25/06/2018 vide Ex.P/10. Subsequently, the vehicle was seized. The entire proceedings were recorded in the Panchnama, which was read over to the Panchas and the accused/appellants. Panchnama (Ex.P/1) was prepared. 6. On 24/06/2018, statements of the above three appellants were recorded and subsequently, seizure report of Ganja and truck were given to Shri A.K. Pandit, Superintendent, CGST on 25/06/2018 vide Ex.P/10. Subsequently, in compliance of Section 52 (A) of the NDPS Act, Sandip Kumar Agrawal (PW5), SDO/SDM has given his report of certifying inventory vide Ex.P/11 on 26/09/2018 and prepared test memo which are Ex.P/12 to Ex.P/37 of the samples. Thereafter, on 05/07/2018, notices (Ex.P/45 and Ex.P/46) were sent to other appellants Premanand Bhadra and Vishnu Kalicharan. The statement of these two appellants were recorded vide Ex.P/47 and Ex.P/48 and they were arrested vide Ex.P/49 and Ex.P/50. In relation to informant’s information, note-sheet (Ex.P/54) was prepared. Letter of Joint Commissioner, R.K. Singh, CGST, Raipur dated 09/07/2018 was received by Deputy Director, DRI, Nagpur (Ex.P/42) and in relation to which, letter of Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Raipur is Ex.P/41. Based on which, Panchnama (Ex.P/39) was prepared. As per Panchnama, 1020 packets were kept in 26 trunks. 40-40 packets were kept in trunk nos. 1-24 and 30-30 packets were kept in trunk nos. 25 & 26 and after completing inquiry, the trunks were sealed. Forensic inquiry of mobile phones of Appellant Surjeet Singh, Avtar Singh and Vishnu Bhadra was prepared vide Ex.P/55. The report in relation to seized mobiles phone was received from Cyber Forensic Laboratory, DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit. The samples of seized Ganja were sent for its chemical examination to Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Custom House, Mumbai. The F.S.L report (Ex.P/12- Ex.P/37) shows that “the sample is in the form of greenish brown flowering and fruiting tops and bits of leaves, stem and stalks along with seed of the plant. On the basis of chemical and chromatographic examination, it is concluded that the sample under reference answer positive test for Ganja (Marijuana). 7. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet against appellant- Koduru Dharmarav, Avtar Singh and Surjeet Singh under Section 8(C) read with 20 (b)(ii) (C) and Section 29 read with 20 (b)(ii) (C) and another charge-sheet against appellant Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand under Section 28 read with 20 (b)(ii) (C) and Section 29 read with 20 (b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act were filed. The charges were read over to the appellants; they denied the same. 8. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses i.e. Shobhraj @ Som Sonwani (PW1), Gowrishankar Jangde (PW2), Superintendent Central Excise Abhishek Pandey (PW3), Superintendent CGST- Anil Kumar Pandit (PW4), CEO, Jila Panchayat- Sandeep Kumar Agrawal (PW5), Superintendent Chandra Prakash (PW6), Intelligence Officer, Nilesh Kaddu (PW7), Deputy Commissioner- Dilip Shevere (PW8), Contingency Employee- Pramod Nag (PW9), Superintendent Pallav Parganiha (PW10) and Intillegence Officer- K.V.L Narasimham (PW11) and exhibited 62 documents Ex.P- 1 to P-62. Statement of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. However, they examined none in his defence. 9. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 15/03/2023 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10. Ms. Shivali Dubey, learned counsel for appellant Kondru Dharmarao (in Cr.A. No. 1230/2023) submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has not been followed by the Investigating Officer. The witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. She further submits that the provisions of Sections 42 (1) (2), 52 (A) & 55 of the Act have not been complied with and the IO had proceeded illegally as per Section 43 of the Act which was wholly irrelevant in the present case. She submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act is akin to Section of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, the same could not be used for being inadmissible. 11. Mr. Vikas Pradhan, learned counsel for Appellant- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand Bhadra (in Cr.A No. 1122/2023) submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has not been followed by the Investigating Officer. The witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. He further submits that Appellant Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand Bhadra were not present in the truck while the Ganja was being transported and they have only been implicated on the statement of other appellants. The witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. He further submits that Appellant Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand Bhadra were not present in the truck while the Ganja was being transported and they have only been implicated on the statement of other appellants. He further submits that further submits that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act has not been complied with. 12. Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for Appellant- Surjeet Singh Randhawa (in Cr.A. No. 1135/2023) and Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for Appellant- Avtar Singh (in Cr.A. No. 1327/2023) submit that the witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. The contraband has not been seized from the physical possession of the appellant. The Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has not been followed and as such, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and evidence with utmost circumspection. 14. The question that whether Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act has been complied with in its letter and spirit or not?, therefore, Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act is reproduced hereunder: - “42. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and evidence with utmost circumspection. 14. The question that whether Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act has been complied with in its letter and spirit or not?, therefore, Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act is reproduced hereunder: - “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.- (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including paramilitary forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset, . (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances, granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. 15. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that under Section 42 only officers mentioned therein and so empowered officers can make the arrest or search as provided if they have reason to believe from personal knowledge or information qua offence(s). In both these provisions there are two important requirements. One is that the Magistrate or the officers mentioned therein firstly be empowered and they must have reason to believe that an offence under Chapter IV has been committed or that such arrest or search was necessary for other purposes mentioned in the provision. It has been held in paragraph 11 of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299 as under: - “11. But there are certain other embargoes envisaged under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. It has been held in paragraph 11 of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299 as under: - “11. But there are certain other embargoes envisaged under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. Only a Magistrate so empowered under Section 41 can issue a warrant for arrest and search where he has reason to believe that an offence under Chapter IV has been committed so on and so forth as mentioned therein. Under sub-section (2) only a Gazetted Officer or other officers mentioned and empowered therein can give an authorization to a subordinate to arrest and search if such officer has reason to believe about the commission of an offence and after reducing the information, if any, into writing. Under Section 42 only officers mentioned therein and so empowered can make the arrest or search as provided if they have reason to believe from personal knowledge or information. In both these provisions there are two important requirements. One is that the Magistrate or the officers mentioned therein firstly be empowered and they must have reason to believe that an offence under Chapter IV has been committed or that such arrest or search was necessary for other purposes mentioned in the provision. So far as the first requirement is concerned, it can be seen that the Legislature intended that only certain Magistrates and certain officers of higher rank and empowered can act to effect the arrest or search. This is a safeguard provided having regard to the deterrent sentences contemplated and with a view that innocent persons are not harassed. Therefore if an arrest or search contemplated under these provisions of NDPS Act has to be carried out, the same can be done only by competent and empowered Magistrates or officers mentioned thereunder.” Furthermore, their Lordships in paragraph 14 have held that whether there was such reason to believe and whether the officer empowered acted in a bona fide manner, depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and will have a bearing in appreciation of the evidence. 16. Even in Baldev Singh’s case (supra), their Lordships of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court with regard to Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act have held in paragraphs 9 & 10 as under: - “9. 16. Even in Baldev Singh’s case (supra), their Lordships of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court with regard to Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act have held in paragraphs 9 & 10 as under: - “9. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 lays down that the empowered officer, if has a prior information given by any person, he should necessarily take it down in writing and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search, without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief. 10. The proviso to sub-section (1) lays down that if the empowered officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place, at any time between sunset and sunrise, after recording the grounds of his belief. Vide sub-section (2) of Section 42, the empowered officer who takes down information in writing or records the grounds of his belief under the proviso to sub-section (1), shall forthwith send a copy of the same to his immediate official superior. Section 43 deals with the power of seizure and arrest of the suspect in a public place. The material difference between the provisions of Section 43 and Section 42 is that whereas Section 42 requires recording of reasons for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the commission of an offence before conducting search and seizure, Section 43 does not contain any such provision and as such while acting under Section 43 of the Act, the empowered officer has the power of seizure of the article etc. and arrest of a person who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful.” 17. and arrest of a person who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful.” 17. Reverting to the facts of the case, in the instant case, as per the statement of K.V.L Narasimham (PW11) it is apparent that he has been posted as Intelligence Officer at Revenue Intelligence Directorate, Regional Unit, Nagpur since 2015 to till date and being an Intelligence Officer, he proceeded with the instant case. This version of this witnesses has not been challenged, therefore, it is established that he had proceeded in the instant case after following the provisions of NDPS Act. Even otherwise, as per notice of Central Govt. i.e. S.O 763 (E) dated 27/09/1989, Intelligence Officer has been made entitle to proceed in the matters falls under the NDPS Act. Likewise, Notice No. S.O 824 (E) of the Central Government dated 14/09/1985 specifies that as per subsection 2 of Section 41 of the NDPS Act, Gazetted Officer of Revenue Intelligence Department has been authorized for proceeding in such cases. 18. Perusal of the above notices shows that Central Government has empowered the Intelligence Officer of the Revenue Intelligence Directorate under the crime relating to Act in their regional jurisdiction. In the instant case, K.V.L Narasimham (PW11) has conducted the proceeding of the case under his regional jurisdiction and it is accordingly established. 19. In the instant case, as per IO (PW11), the contraband was being transported in a vehicle bearing serial number - C.G. -07/CA-5727, which is type of Cargo Vehicle TATA 3118. As per statement of IO (PW11), the said truck was transporting cannabis from Odisha to Milan and seizure of contraband was done on main road, Santoshi Nagar Chowk, Dhamtari Road, Raipur which is a public place, therefore, it is well established from the evidence of prosecution that the cannabis being transported, was seized at a public place which was kept in a Cargo truck, which is type of goods carrying vehicle. 20. Section 43 of the NDPS Act reads as under;- 43. 20. Section 43 of the NDPS Act reads as under;- 43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place.- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may- (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V-A of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. 21. Perusal of the Section 43 of the Act shows that under Section 43 of the Act, the officer has power to seize and arrest of a person in a public place if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. In the instant case, IO (PW11) has seized narcotic drugs from appellants- Kondru, Surjeet and Avtar in a public place. Therefore, this Court found that the instant cases fall under Section 43 of the NDPS Act and the provisions of the same have been duly complied with. 22. According K.V.L Narasimham (PW11), he received an information through an information from the informer that a truck bearing serial number - C.G. -07/CA-5727 transporting Ganja from Odisha to Milan. He gave the above information to his senior officer Mr. A.K. Pandit in writing, who gave the said information over phone to Mrs. Vandana, Deputy Director, D.R.I. and, after being verbally ordered by Mrs. Vandana, to take action, A.K. Pandit, K.V.L. Narasimham and Chandraparakash along with staff proceeded to Raipur. He had prepared note-sheet Ex.P/54 in relation to informer’s information. He gave the above information to his senior officer Mr. A.K. Pandit in writing, who gave the said information over phone to Mrs. Vandana, Deputy Director, D.R.I. and, after being verbally ordered by Mrs. Vandana, to take action, A.K. Pandit, K.V.L. Narasimham and Chandraparakash along with staff proceeded to Raipur. He had prepared note-sheet Ex.P/54 in relation to informer’s information. 23. Anil Kumar Pandit (PW4) has categorically deposed in his statement that on 23/06/2018, K.V.L. Narasimham (PW11) had informed him about the information received from the informant regarding transportation of Ganja in a truck from Odissa and he informed the same information to his superior officer i.e. Chief Senior Officer, Smt. Vandana on telephone. It is evident from the note-sheet Ex.P/54. 24. Som Sonwani (PW1) is a witness of Panchnama (Ex.P/1). He deposed that when they unloaded the coconut from the intercepted vehicle, there were plastic bags kept beneath the coconut. After opening the bags, there were 6 packets kept in each bag. After opening the packet, it was revealed that the packets were containing Ganja. This witness has subsequently turned hostile. 25. Gowrishankar Jangde (PW2) has deposed in his statement that he has signed the Panchnama (Ex.P/1). He deposed that when the coconut were unloaded from the vehicle and there were packets of Ganja kept beneath the Coconut. This witness has subsequently turned hostile. 26. Abhishek Pandey (PW3) was the incharge of Godown, in Preventive Branch, Central Excise, GST Bhawan, Raipur at the time of incident. He deposed that on 24/06/2018, he was handed over 170 bags wherein total 1020 packets were kept, weighing approximately 6500 Kgs. He had taken the said bags under his custody and kept the same in Godown and thereafter, he sealed the Godown and Grill in front of witnesses. He deposed that in September, 2018, he was present while the proceeding of sampling was done. He had opened the room in presence of Panchas, Officers and Magistrate. Ex.P/5 is the Panchnama. He has deposed that he was on leave while the proceeding to keep the Ganja in a safe trunk was done. 52A. He deposed that in September, 2018, he was present while the proceeding of sampling was done. He had opened the room in presence of Panchas, Officers and Magistrate. Ex.P/5 is the Panchnama. He has deposed that he was on leave while the proceeding to keep the Ganja in a safe trunk was done. 52A. 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, specify 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 may be after their seizure, be disposed 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 identifying 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 certifying 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. (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 conveyance and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence. 27. In this regard, statement of Sandip Kumar Agrawal (PW5) is relevant. He deposed that he has been posted as Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur during the period from May 2018 to June 2019. He was appointed as Magistrate by District Magistrate Raipur for preparing samples in pursuance of DRI's letter dated 23/08/2018. In compliance with the above order, he conducted sampling on 26/09/2018 at GST Bhawan Tikrapara Raipur in the presence of GST officer Mr. Abhishek Pandey and DRI officer Mr. Narasimhan and two other witnesses. He deposed that on reaching the first floor of the GST building, the warehouse was inspected along with the GST officer and other witnesses. The channel gate outside the warehouse was in a sealed condition, which was opened in front of the GST officer and witnesses, after which he went inside along with other witnesses. The door which was sealed was also opened where he found sealed boxes numbered 01 to 26 were kept inside the warehouse, in which the confiscated ganja was said to be kept. DRI officer Shri Narasimhan told that there were 40-40 packets in box number 01 to 24 and 30-30 packets were kept in box number 25 and 26, all the packets had a unique serial number. While preparing the Panchnama, all the sealed boxes were opened, and in the boxes brown colored taped packets were found inside, which were taken out and counted. Thereafter, one packet each was taken out randomly from all the boxes and opened, in which brown leafy substance was found, which had a strange smell, from which two samples of 30 grams each were taken out, and kept in plastic zip foil, Which were named original and duplicate. After removing the samples, all the packets were packed again with brown tape and kept back in the same boxes. Thereafter the boxes were sealed again. After removing the samples, all the packets were packed again with brown tape and kept back in the same boxes. Thereafter the boxes were sealed again. Photography was done during all the above proceedings. After the proceedings, all the boxes were again sealed with lac seal, and the main door and channel gate of the room were sealed with lac seal and the keys of the boxes and the keys of the main door and channel gate were handed over to GST officer Abhishek Pandey. The 26 samples taken out were kept in separate envelopes with original and duplicate marks marked on them and sealed. The certificate prepared by him in relation to inspection and sampling process of the inventory is Ex.P/11. 28. The Illegally Acquired Property (Receipt, Management and Disposal) Rules, 1989 came into force on 29/05/1989. In the instant case, the date of incident is 23/06/2018. The new Rules of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 ('NDPS Rules 2022' for short) were brought into force on 23/12/2022, therefore, in this case, the Rules, 1989 of the Act would be applicable. 29. Inventory of contraband was made before the SDM (PW5) and the SDM certified the correctness of the inventory as per the Panchnamas dated 23/24/06/2018 & 09/08/2018. He also certified the correctness of photographs taken in his presence of the inventory of goods produced before him. The certification is made asper Section 52 (A)(2) of the NDPS Act, 1982. The seal and signature of SDM on that is ‘A to A’. 30. Inventory report (Ex.P/11) shows that the SDM (PW5) has gone along with the officers and witnesses to the Godown, situated at the office of Commissioner of CGST & CX, CGST Bhawan, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The outer collapsible gate of the said Godown was found locked and lac seal bearing inscription "Commissioner Central Excise Raipur MP" applied on the lock was found intact and in order. In his presence, the lac seal so applied on the lock was removed and then the collapsible gate was opened. Further, the inner door of the said godown was also found locked and lac seal bearing inscription "Commissioner Central Excise Raipur MP", applied on the said lock, was found in tact and in order. In his presence, the lac seal so applied on the lock was removed and then the collapsible gate was opened. Further, the inner door of the said godown was also found locked and lac seal bearing inscription "Commissioner Central Excise Raipur MP", applied on the said lock, was found in tact and in order. The said lac seal was removed in his presence and he along with the above officers entered the godown, where the above said 26 trunks, marked with 1 to 26, said to be containing 1020 brown-coloured packets of Cannabis, were found stored. Each of the trunks was in sealed condition with lac seals bearing inscription "Commissioner Central Excise Raipur MP" and Paper seals. The serial number marked on the said 26 trunks as mentioned in the Panchanma dated 09.08.2018 tallied with those mentioned in the respective trunks. Photographs of the said trunks were taken in his presence. The report further reveals that lac seals applied on each trunk were removed and all the 26 trunks were opened by the DRI Officers in my presence. The trunks bearing No. 1 to 24 contained 40 packets of material which is said to be Cannabis each, whereas trunk bearing no. 25 & 26 contained 30 packets of said material each. Hence, a total of 1020 packets covered with brown adhesive tape, with markings as mentioned in the Panchnama dated 23/24.06.2018 and 09.08.2018, were found. Then the DRI officers in my presence randomly picked up one packet from each trunk and cut the said packets and produced before me the said packets. Each such 26 packets so picked up randomly from the 26 trunks each (one from each trunk) were found to contain dry brown leafy material emanating distinct odour. Two representative samples of 30 grams (approx.) were taken from those 26 packets, so picked up randomly, and placed in two zip-lock polythene pouches having markings. Photographs of the said envelopes were tfslaken in my presence. Test Memos bearing Sl. No. 01/NRU/2018/1 to 01/NRU/2018/26 were prepared in Triplicate in my presence in respect of the samples drawn and duly signed by Shri K. V.L. Narsimham, Intelligence Officer, DRI, NRU and he affixed his dated signature on the Test Memos in token of having been prepared in his presence. Test Memos bearing Sl. No. 01/NRU/2018/1 to 01/NRU/2018/26 were prepared in Triplicate in my presence in respect of the samples drawn and duly signed by Shri K. V.L. Narsimham, Intelligence Officer, DRI, NRU and he affixed his dated signature on the Test Memos in token of having been prepared in his presence. The 26 sealed envelops marked as 'ORIGINAL' containing the representative sample along with the test memos in duplicate were placed in 7 light green coloured envelops (4 light green envelops in each of 6 big light green coloured envelop and 2 light green envelops in 1 big light green coloured envelop) and the same were sealed with lac seal bearing inscription "Commissioner Central Excise Raipur MP" and he and Shri K. V. L. Narsimham, IO, DRI, NRU put their dated signature. On the above said 07 light green coloured envelopes containing the original samples and the test memo, in duplicate, it was mentioned as "Secret-Drug sample/Test Memo". Photographs of the said sealed envelope were taken in his presence. 31. Though, it is correct that the samples were not taken from each of the packets and randomly 26 packets were taken, which were kept in 26 different trunks. It is apparent that total packets were 1020 weighing total to 6545 Kgs. If we calculate one packet weight which comes to 6.4166 Kg per packet then total weight of 26 packets would be about 166.66 Kgs. The total weight of 166.66 Kgs still fall under the commercial quantity. The samples of the contraband were sent for its examination to FSL on 03/10/2018 which was received on 05/10/2018. The FSL report of test memo Ex.P/12- Ex.P/37 shows that “the sample is in the form of greenish brown flowering and fruiting tops and bits of leaves, stem and stalks along with seed of the plant. On the basis of chemical and chromatographic examination, it is concluded that the sample under reference answer positive test for Ganja (Marijuana)”. 32. According to section 293 of CrPC the report of Government scientific experts provided under this section will be held admissible as evidence in inquiry. Even otherwise, inventory of contraband under Section 52 (A) of the NDPS Act is primary evidence. 33. Therefore, we found there has been proper compliance of Section 52 (A) of the Act and the prosecution has complied the provision of the said section. 34. Even otherwise, inventory of contraband under Section 52 (A) of the NDPS Act is primary evidence. 33. Therefore, we found there has been proper compliance of Section 52 (A) of the Act and the prosecution has complied the provision of the said section. 34. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that there was non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not acceptable because the contraband has not been seized in personal search of the appellant, but from Cargo vehicle which was in possession of appellant K.Dharmara, Surjeet Singh Randhawa and Avtar Singh therefore, Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable in the present case. 35. According to the Pallav Parganiha (PW-10), he was posted as Inspector in Central GST Office Tikrapara Raipur on 09.08.2018. According to this witness, on 09.08.2018, the seal in the Godown of Central CGST Office Tikrapara was opened and the packet of ganja kept inside the godown was kept sealed in a steel trunk for safekeeping. During the said proceedings, his DRI officer and Investigator Narasimhan, Havildar Sapkal and two witnesses were present. According to this witness, Panchnama was prepared in relation to the said proceedings that took place before him, the said Panchnama is Ex.P/39. 36. According Nilesh Kadu (PW-7), he was posted as Intelligence Officer in DRI Nagpur from May 2018, a letter had come from the Joint Commissioner from CGST Raipur that the Ganja has to be kept in the truck in a protective manner, as per the said letter. On the basis of this letter dated 09/08/2018, K.V.L. Narasimhan, Sakpal had come to Raipur. According to this witness, on 24/06/2018, they had seized 6545 kg of ganja in the trunk which was kept for security at CGST Office. Pallav Parganiya, in-charge of CGST Amnesty Raipur, was also present there. According to this witness, the ganja which was kept in CGST building on 24/06/2018 was sealed. 37. In any case, it is important that the drug seized in the case should be kept safe and secure and the process of extracting the sample from it should be done duly and the sample should also be sent to a competent laboratory under proper custody. 37. In any case, it is important that the drug seized in the case should be kept safe and secure and the process of extracting the sample from it should be done duly and the sample should also be sent to a competent laboratory under proper custody. In the present case, the process of sealing the seized drug and keeping it in a safe in godown and taking out the sample has also been found to be legal and the sample taken out has also been found to be sealed and sent for testing legally. At any stage of the case, no tampering has been found in the drug samples or the seized packets, hence, the entire case cannot be considered unbelievable merely on the basis of samples being taken at the CGST Bhawan. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there has been proper compliance of Section 43 of the NDPS Act and the Investigator on the information of the informant, intercepted the vehicle wherein 6545 Kgs Ganja was kept and appellants K.Dharmara, Surjeet Singh Randhawa and Avtar Singh were present in the said truck. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has proved its case in respect of appellants K.Dharmara, Surjeet Singh Randhawa and Avtar Singh. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced them. 38. Now the questions remains whether Appellant Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand were involved in the said crime or not? 39. Mr. Vikas Pradhan, learned counsel for Appellant Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand has submitted that these appellants were not present in the said truck in which the Ganja was transported and merely on the statement of the co-accused which is not admissible in the eyes of law, the conviction cannot be sustained. 40. The prosecution has come up with case that these appellants were the supplier of the contraband article in question and the conviction of these appellants is based on their statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 41. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 6 (2021) 4 SCC 1 that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. 41. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 6 (2021) 4 SCC 1 that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569 OF 2021 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. 42. Similarly in the matter of A.K. Mehaboob v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1035, the Supreme Court has held that the confession statement under Section 67 of the Evidence Act which is permissible in law needs corroboration. The contents of the said statement were not corroborated by the other evidence. 43. In the instant case, the statement recorded under Section 67 by the IO (PW11) naming Appellants-Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand is not admissible because there is no corroborative evidence or other evidence on record, therefore, statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is a weak type of evidence in the instant case. 44. Applying the aforesaid principles in the instant case, we are of the view that the case of the prosecution in respect of Appellant Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. 45. In the result, Cr.A. Nos. 1230/2023, 1135/2023 & 1327/2023 on behalf of appellants K.Dharmara, Surjeet Singh Randhawa and Avtar Singh are devoid in merits and liable to be and are hereby dismissed. The said appellants are stated to be in jail. They shall serve out the sentenced awarded to them by the Trial Court. 46. So far as Cr.A. No. 1122/2023 filed on behalf of Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand is concerned, it is hereby allowed. 47. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand by the trial Court is hereby set-aside. The Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 48. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand by the trial Court is hereby set-aside. The Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 48. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the Appellants- Vishnu Bhadra and Premanand, are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 49. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.