Order : Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS, Korba, District Korba, in Special Criminal Case No. 11/2012, by which the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the N.D.P.S. Act.) Sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 years. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that while vehicle checking on 12.12.2011, the Police of Police Station – Pali, District Korba, received information from the secret informer that the contraband article Ganja was illegally being transported for the purpose of sale in vehicle Indica Car bearing registration number OR 16-C-9714. The said information was forwarded to the higher authorities. After receiving direction for conducting proceedings, the said vehicle Indica Car No. OR 16-C-9714 was intercepted and search was made. In search of the said vehicle, 70 Kilograms of Ganja contained in three sacks was allegedly found in the said vehicle which was in joint possession of the accused persons, four in number, and thereafter, the same was sealed and seized. Thereafter, sample packets were prepared and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur. On the basis of the above facts, crime was registered against the accused persons including the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Korba, District- Korba against the appellants/accused persons. The appellants denied the charges and pleaded innocence. After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing arguments of respective parties, the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Korba, District – Korba convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused persons as aforementioned. Hence, these appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment is illegal and against the law as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act so far it relates to search, seizure and sampling are concerned, have not been followed. Even the Investigating Officer, in his statement has admitted this fact. Hence, these appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment is illegal and against the law as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act so far it relates to search, seizure and sampling are concerned, have not been followed. Even the Investigating Officer, in his statement has admitted this fact. The contraband article was not seized from the exclusive possession of the appellants/accused but from the dickey of the vehicle in which they were travelling. Mr. Dubey further submits that the appellants have clearly stated in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they have been falsely implicated by the police when the police demanded illegal gratification and when the appellants refused and said that they would report the matter to the higher authorities, they were beaten and implicated in this case. Even when the seizure was being made, there were no witnesses and the witnesses were called only at the time of weighing of the contraband article. The independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The samples were also not drawn as per the requirement under the law. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidences available on record while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution witness’s police statements and their Court statements. It is further submitted that there are substantial developments in the prosecution witness’s Court statements. The prosecution witnesses are not reliable. The independent witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution. Since the seized Ganja has not been produced before the learned Court, and therefore, the story of the prosecution is not reliable and also the samples have not been taken as per provision of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, they further submit that learned trial Court should have acquitted the appellants of charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. When the entire proceedings was based on the secret information received from the informer, then the said information should have been forwarded to the higher authorities within 72 hours but the same has not been done. Even the seized Ganja was not produced before the learned trial Court. 4. Mr. When the entire proceedings was based on the secret information received from the informer, then the said information should have been forwarded to the higher authorities within 72 hours but the same has not been done. Even the seized Ganja was not produced before the learned trial Court. 4. Mr. Dubey further submits that Standing Instruction 1/88, which had been issued by the Narcotic Control Bureau, lays down the procedure for taking samples from each packets/bags seized which has not been done, further Section 42 of the NDPS Act has also not been complied in the instant case and as such, because of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment impugned and argued that the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence against the appellant and submits that the learned trial Court, after due consideration, has rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. The seized Ganja is much above the commercial quantity and the police had intercepted and searched the vehicle while they were on routine patrol duty. The samples were duly sent to the FSL, Raipur wherein the seized article was found to be Ganja. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court. 7. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellants were found to be in possession of 70 KGs of Ganja which was kept in three sacks the learned trial Court in his judgment and order dated 06.09.2012 stated that the appellants were found in possession of 70 kgs of intoxicating substance Ganja which was kept in three packets in their Indica Car No. OR-16-C-9714. One of the independent seizure witness namely Basant Kumar Patel (PW-4) has stated that the proceedings with regard to weighing of the contraband article was done at Police Station. Though he is a witness to Samras Panchnama (Exhibit P/6) but has denied that he had participated in any of the proceedings and has further stated that nothing was seized in his presence from the appellants. Though he is a witness to Samras Panchnama (Exhibit P/6) but has denied that he had participated in any of the proceedings and has further stated that nothing was seized in his presence from the appellants. In the cross examination, this witness states that after making seizure from the spot, the police had returned back to the Police Station and no proceedings were written on the spot and wherever the police personnel asked him to sign, he had put his signature. Accordingly, this witness has been declared hostile. Other witnesses are the police personnel. 8. One of the main witness in this case is the Investigating Officer (PW-6) Shyam Sidar who is the Inspector and had conducted the entire proceedings. This witness clearly states that he had received secret information but he had not prepared panchnama with respect to the said secret information. He further states that he made no efforts to ascertain the owner of the vehicle in question. He also did not made any efforts to ascertain as to why the other co-passengers were sitting in the said vehicle and on the contrary, since a huge quantity of Ganja was being transported, he had arrayed all the passengers the vehicle as accused. This witness also admits that during the search, there was no independent witness present. This witness even could not state as to what was the quantity of Ganja in each sack. He had taken out samples from all the three bags and mixed them and he did not draw separate samples from each sack. 9. When the IO himself has deposed that he had received secret information, the learned trial Court was at fault while observing that the IO has stated that while they were on patrol duty, they intercepted the vehicle in question. Further, as per Clause 1.13 of the Standing Instruction No.1/88 dated 15.03.1988, the samples must be dispatched to the laboratory within 72 hours of seizure to avoid any legal objection, whereas in this case, admittedly, samples, which were drawn on 12.12.2010 at 15:35 hours, have not been sent within 72 hours but it was received by the FSL, Raipur on 16.12.2010 is beyond 72 hours. 10. 10. The statement of the IO during the trial seems to be in contradiction with the indings of the trial Court as during his examination, he stated that he was being informed about the vehicle carrying Ganja by an informant (Mukhbir). But in the judgment it has been stated that the Police Officials during the patrolling caught hold of the appellants and seized the Ganja. The IO ought to have taken out samples from each bag and sent it to the FSL for examination, however, in the instant case, samples were drawn from all the three bags and were mixed and two packets were prepared which were sent to the FSL for examination. There have been multiple guidelines being laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases including Union Of India v. Mohanlal and Anr. ( 2016 3 SCC 379 ) and the compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has been time and again relied. 11. A simple reading of the aforesaid provision as also stated earlier reveals that when any contraband narcotics substance is seized and forwarded to the Police, so mention under Section 53, the Officer so referred to shall prepare its inventory with details and descriptions of the seized substance like quality quantity, mode of packing, and then make an application to any Magistrate for the purpose of certifying its corrections and for allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the correctness of the list of samples drawn. 12. From the above analysis, it is evident that the mandatory provisions of law as provided under the NDPS Act have not been followed in its letter and spirit and as such, the entire proceedings of the police becomes doubtful. 13. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court, in Rajkumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, (Cr.A. No. 565/2023 decided on 01.05.2024) had allowed the appeal, though observing that there were lacuna in the investigation done by the IO. The facts of the present case is similar to that of Rajkumar Sharma (supra). Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that beneit of doubt should be extended to the appellants herein also as in the present cases, the appellants were in jail since 12.12.2010. In Cr.A. No. 868/2012, the appellants, namely, Mohd. Fajal and Mohd. The facts of the present case is similar to that of Rajkumar Sharma (supra). Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that beneit of doubt should be extended to the appellants herein also as in the present cases, the appellants were in jail since 12.12.2010. In Cr.A. No. 868/2012, the appellants, namely, Mohd. Fajal and Mohd. Sajid have remained in custody for a period of almost 6 years and were granted bail by this Court on 27.10.2016. In Cr.A. No.547/2017, the appellant, namely, Amrit Lal has been remained in custody for a period of almost 6 years and was granted bail by this Court on 24.04.2017. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS, Korba (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 11/2012, is accordingly set-aside. 15. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender, however, their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and shall remain operative for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action.