ORDER : Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 1. Both these appeals are arising out of the same crime number and the same sessions trial, therefore both are being heard and decided together. 2. Both these criminal appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 21.10.2022, passed by learned Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985), Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, in Special Criminal Case No. 7 of 2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced for R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1 lakh to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for 6 months. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.03.2020, a secret information was received by the police of Police Station Patna, District Korea, that a white colour Scorpio vehicle bearing No. CG-16/CL-8964 coming from Surajpur to Baikunthpur having loaded with Ganja. The witnesses were being called and secret information Panchnama was prepared. The information regarding secret information was sent to the senior police officer, and thereafter, the police reached on the spot, and near Dakaipara Bypass, the vehicle of the appellants were intercepted. On being searched, the accused persons were found sitting in the vehicle, they disclosed their names, then the police party informed the appellants about the secret information. The notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to them and informed about their right to search, either by police persons, gazetted officer, or any Magistrate. The appellants have given their consent to be searched by the police party, and their consent were reduced in writing in Exhibit P-6, P-7 and P-8. The Panchnama regarding search without warrant was also prepared, which is Exhibit P-3. The Panchnama regarding secret information and seizure of the vehicle was also prepared, which is Exhibit P-4. Police party also gave their search to the accused persons, and Panchnama was of the same has also been prepared as Exhibit P-9 and P-10. The accused persons were separately searched by the police party and on being searched, from accused Kamlesh Jaiswal, cash of Rs. 1450/- has been seized from him. Police party also gave their search to the accused persons, and Panchnama was of the same has also been prepared as Exhibit P-9 and P-10. The accused persons were separately searched by the police party and on being searched, from accused Kamlesh Jaiswal, cash of Rs. 1450/- has been seized from him. From accused Bahadur Ram Kurre, his Aadhar card, driving license, PAN card, ATM card of Axis Bank, cash of Rs. 640/- and two mobile phones have been seized. From accused Ramesh Kumar Dewangan, his driving license, cash of Rs. 280/- and one mobile phone have been seized. The key of the vehicle number CG-16/CL-8964 was also seized from Ramesh Kumar Dewangan and the Talasi Panchnama was prepared as Exhibit P-11, seizure memo was prepared as Exhibit P-12. On being searched of the vehicle, the alleged contraband ganja was found, which was in plastic packets and filled in 11 bags, and kept at middle and rear seat of the vehicle. The said contraband was seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P-13. When the accused persons were asked about the contraband ganja, which was kept in 280 packets in 11 bags, they disclosed that it was being transported from Sonpur, Odisha, for its sale, and the vehicle belongs to themselves and then the Panchnama with that effect was prepared vide Exhibit P-14. Seized contraband was identified by its smell, taste, and by burning and the identification Panchnama Exhibit P-15 was prepared. The witness for the weighment of the seized contraband ganja was called vide Exhibit P-16. The weighment apparatus was physically verified, and Panchnama was prepared to that effect vide Exhibit P-17. On being weighed, it was found total 292.800 kg which were kept in various packets and bags, and the weighment Panchnama was prepared vide Exhibit P-18. The witness for the weighment of the seized contraband ganja was called vide Exhibit P-16. The weighment apparatus was physically verified, and Panchnama was prepared to that effect vide Exhibit P-17. On being weighed, it was found total 292.800 kg which were kept in various packets and bags, and the weighment Panchnama was prepared vide Exhibit P-18. The details of the packets and bags, in which the contraband ganja was kept is given hereinbelow:- Packets Quantity A-1 36-500 kg gjs jax ds IykfLVd cksjs esa j[kk 35 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-2 25-500 kg ihys jax ds IykfLVd cksjs ftl ij MOREGGS ys[k gS esa j[kk 25 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-3 26-600 kg ihys jax ds IykfLVd cksjk ftl ij MOREGGS ys[k gS esa j[kk 25 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-4 36-200 kg gjs jax ds IykfLVd cksjs esa j[kk 35 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-5 36-100 kg gjs jax ds IykfLVd cksjs esa j[kk 35 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-6 29-200 kg gjs jax ds IykfLVd cksjs esa j[kk 28 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-7 26-700 kg ihys jax ds IykfLVd cksjs ftl ij MOREGGS ys[k gS esa j[kk 26 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-8 25-100 kg ihys jax ds IykfLVd cksjs ftl ij MOREGGS ys[k gS esa j[kk 25 iSdsV xkatk A-9 12-300 kg lQsn ds IykfLVd cksjs esa j[kk 12 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-10 26-400 kg gjs jax ds IykfLVd cksjs esa j[kk 22 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-11 10-400 kg lQsn dsIykfLVd cksjs ftlesaIFFCO nkusnkj ;wfj;k ys[k esa j[kk 10 ux xkatk dk iSdsV A-12 02-100 kg ,d uhys dkysjax ds fiV~Bw Ldwy cSx esaj[kk 02 ux xkatk dk iSdsV 4. The seized ganja, which was kept in different bags, was mixed, and after mixing the same, two samples of 100 grams each was separated and separately sealed. The remaining ganja was refilled in 20 bags, and again it was weighed, which comes to 286.300 kg. The weight of the empty bag and plastic packing comes to 8.800 kg, and thus the Samaras and sample Panchnama, Exhibit P-19, was prepared. The remaining ganja was refilled in 20 bags, and again it was weighed, which comes to 286.300 kg. The weight of the empty bag and plastic packing comes to 8.800 kg, and thus the Samaras and sample Panchnama, Exhibit P-19, was prepared. After Samaras Panchnama, the seized ganja was again weighed and weighment after Samaras Panchnama was also prepared vide Exhibit P-20, whose details are again given hereinbelow :- Øekad Án'kZ otu 1 B-1 14-980 kg 2 B-2 12-660 kg 3 B-3 15-720 kg 4 B-4 15-270 kg 5 B-5 17-540 kg 6 B-6 10-330 kg 7 B-7 14-730 kg 8 B-8 17-560 kg 9 B-9 16-340 kg 10 B-10 16-980 kg 11 B-11 13-00 kg 12 B-12 17-290 kg 13 B-13 10-600 kg 14 B-14 11-810 kg 15 B-15 13-970 kg 16 B-16 15-840 kg 17 B-17 15-400 kg 18 B-18 11-300 kg 19 B-19 13-580 kg 20 B-20 11-400 kg 21 B-21 5-300 kg 22 B-22 3-500 kg 5. The sample of the seized ganja and remaining ganja was separately packed and sealed. The specimen seal Panchnama was also prepared vide Exhibit P-21. The information about arrest was given to the accused persons vide Exhibit P-22. Seizure memo of ganja and its sample was prepared vide Exhibit P-23. Notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act was also given to the accused persons in which they disclosed that they are not having any license or valid documents regarding possession of the seized ganja. The accused persons were arrested on 03.01.2020, and their arrest memo, Exhibit P-25, P-26, and P-27 were prepared. Spot Map, Exhibit P-29 was prepared by the police, and Exhibit P-28 was prepared by the Patwari. The seized ganja and its sample packet and other seized articles, including vehicle, was taken to police station and kept in safer custody in Malkhana and relevant entries have been made in Malkhana Register, which is Exhibit P-48. Dehati Nalisi Exhibit P-56 was prepared by the police on the spot on 03.01.2020 itself. The FIR Exhibit P-8 was registered on 03.01.2020 itself against the accused persons for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The sample of ganja separated from the total quantity was sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL Ambikapur on 06.01.2020 through the memo Exhibit P-60. The FIR Exhibit P-8 was registered on 03.01.2020 itself against the accused persons for the offence under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act. The sample of ganja separated from the total quantity was sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL Ambikapur on 06.01.2020 through the memo Exhibit P-60. The FSL report was received, which is Exhibit P-61, and according to which the sent samples was found to be contained with ganja substance. The particulars of the vehicle was also obtained from the concerned RTO, in which it was found that the vehicle was registered in the name of Bahadur Ram Kurre, which is Exhibit P-63. In compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the police have made a request for verification of the seized ganja for which the concerned Judicial Magistrate was authorized through the document Exhibit P-64 and the verification report under Section 52-A of NDPS Act is Exhibit P-65. 6. The photographs taken while verification of the seized ganja under Section 52-A of NDPS Act are Exhibit P-66. The report of the entire proceeding was sent to the senior police officer through the document Exhibit P-50 and Exhibit P-67. The statement of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act against the accused persons. They denied the charge and claimed trial. 8. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were also recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. Two defence witnesses have been examined by the accused persons and exhibited the documents Exhibit D-1 to D-5 in their support. 9. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, hence these appeals. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. None of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have been complied with by the Police. The independent witnesses have been turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution's case. He would further submit that there is absolutely non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the samples have not been drawn from each of the packets, whereas the same has been drawn after mixing the entire quantity of ganja, which is in violation of the circular No. 1 of 89, issued by the Central Government. They would further submit that the samples which have been separated from the total quantity of ganja have not marked with the mark of “S-1 and S-2”, whereas the sample received by the Regional FSL Ambikapur were found to be marked with the mark of S-1 and S-2. and thus the tampering of the samples are ruled out. They would further submit that there is discrepancy in the sealing of the samples and remaining quantity of ganja, preparation of specimen seal Panchnama, and also sending of the seal and its specimen to the FSL, and thus the case of the prosecution suffers with material irregularity and investigation fails to inculpate the accused persons in the alleged offence. In absence of compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, the appellants cannot be convicted, and therefore they are entitled for their acquittal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the investigating officer at the time of effective search and seizure proceedings has substantially complied with all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, though the independent witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution's case, but they have admitted their signatures on the seizure memo. These apart, the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution's case and their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of they being the official witnesses, particularly in absence of any evidence on record to show their ill intention or animosity as against the appellants for their false implication in their case. 12. These apart, the official witnesses have fully supported the prosecution's case and their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of they being the official witnesses, particularly in absence of any evidence on record to show their ill intention or animosity as against the appellants for their false implication in their case. 12. Learned trial Court, having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence, has rightly recorded the finding of guilt against the appellants, which needs no interference by this Court, therefore, the present appeals being sans merit and are liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. PW-1, Sunil Kumar, and PW-2, Mahendra Rajwade, who are the independent witnesses, have stated that on the instance of the police, they have signed the documents Exhibit P-1 to P-29. They did not know about the incident. They denied the suggestion given by the prosecution and stated only that their signatures are there in the documents Exhibit P-1 to P-29. 15. PW-3, Babulal, who is the Head Constable at Police Station Patna, was Incharge, Malkhana Moharir, on the relevant date. He stated in his deposition that he brought the original Malkhana register with him and produced attested true copies of the same, which are Exhibit P-32 to P-40. He further stated that on 03.01.2020, total 283.800 kg ganja, which was packed in 20 bags, was deposited in the Malkhana, in which B-1 to B-20 mark was endorsed. Two empty bags were also seized from the accused persons, which were separately marked as B-21 and B-22. The sample packets and registration certificate of the vehicle was also endorsed in the said Malkhana register and the seized register is Exhibit P-48. On 07.01.2020, two sample packets were taken out and given it to the constable No. 483 for sending it to FSL. The acknowledgment of the same was received on 08.01.2020, which has also been endorsed in the said register of Malkhana. On 09.01.2020, total 20 bags of ganja was sent to the Court for further proceeding through the Inspector S.P. Tiwari, which was received back on the same day itself and its acknowledgment has also been endorsed in the Malkhana register. In cross-examination, he stated that on 03.01.2020, he himself has not recorded any Rojnamcha in his own handwriting. On 09.01.2020, total 20 bags of ganja was sent to the Court for further proceeding through the Inspector S.P. Tiwari, which was received back on the same day itself and its acknowledgment has also been endorsed in the Malkhana register. In cross-examination, he stated that on 03.01.2020, he himself has not recorded any Rojnamcha in his own handwriting. There is no document on record that he was Incharge of Malkhana on that day. He admitted that the relevant entries in Rojnamcha register have been made by the investigative officer. He further admitted that there is no entry in the register with respect to taking out the sample from Malkhana. He further admitted that the Panchnama, which was prepared at the time of sending the sample to FSL and giving it to the constable, has not been prepared by him. He further admitted that the sample was not returned back to him from FSL. He further admitted that the seal was kept by Moharrir, but at the time of proceeding from the police station, the seal was not taken by the investigating officer from him and no Panchnama was also prepared for the same. He voluntarily stated that the seal was usually kept in the police station, which was being taken by the person concerned. 16. PW-4 Rajesh Kumar, who is the person who weighed the seized ganja, has also turned hostile. He stated in his deposition that the police have taken the weighment apparatus from his shop for weighing the ganja and has obtained his signature over various papers. His signatures are there in the document, Exhibit P-16 to P-18. He denied the physical verification of his weighment apparatus. In cross-examination, he has stated that no weighment was done in his presence. He signed the papers on the instance of the police persons. 17. PW-5, Shohrab Ali is the Reader to the Deputy Superintendent of the Police, Baikunthpur. He received the secret information Panchnama and searched without warrant Panchnama and issued the acknowledgment. He also received copy of the FIR along with the inventory, which is entered in the dispatch register, Exhibit P-50. In cross-examination, he admitted that in the document, Exhibit P-49, the date of secret information was mentioned as 01.01.2020 and he is stating the date of 03.01.2020. He also received copy of the FIR along with the inventory, which is entered in the dispatch register, Exhibit P-50. In cross-examination, he admitted that in the document, Exhibit P-49, the date of secret information was mentioned as 01.01.2020 and he is stating the date of 03.01.2020. He admitted that except the date, time, place, the names of police officers and witnesses, all other parts of Exhibit P-50 were of carbon copy. He further admitted that in the information, Exhibit P-50, the date was corrected. 18. PW-7 Rajeshwar Sahu, who is a constable at Police Station Patna, has taken the sealed sample packets of seized Ganja from Police Station to FSL, Ambikapur and submitted its acknowledgment Exhibit P-51. In cross-examination, he stated that along with the sample packets, a draft was given to him to deposit it with the FSL. He has taken the samples on 07.01.2020 from the Police Station. 19. PW-8 Balsai Porte, who is also a constable at Police Station Patna, has taken the inventory along with the copy of the FIR, seizure memos, arrest memos to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur and obtained acknowledgment. In cross-examination, he admitted that there is a manipulation in the dates mentioned in Exhibit P-50, but he could not tell as to who has done this. 20. PW-9 L.P. Patel, who is the Inspector of Police posted at Police Station Baikunthpur, has stated in his deposition that Police Diary of Crime No. 7 of 2020 was received by him for further investigation, and he recorded the statements of the witnesses. In cross-examination, he admitted that he received the case diary for investigation after about a month. 21. PW-10 Satyaprakash Tiwari, who is the investigating officer of the case, has stated in his deposition that on 03.01.2020, he received a secret information about illegal transportation of Ganja by Scorpio vehicle No. CG-16/CL-8964. He called the witnesses and proceeded towards the place of alleged incident. He intercepted the vehicle and found three persons sitting in it. On being asked, they disclosed their names. Driver has disclosed his name as Ramesh Kumar Dewangan. The secret information was being informed to them. Necessary Panchanamas were prepared and their right to search has been informed to them. They have also given their own search to the accused persons and no incriminating article has been seized from them. On being asked, they disclosed their names. Driver has disclosed his name as Ramesh Kumar Dewangan. The secret information was being informed to them. Necessary Panchanamas were prepared and their right to search has been informed to them. They have also given their own search to the accused persons and no incriminating article has been seized from them. The accused persons were also personally searched and from Kamlesh, cash of Rs.1450/- was seized. From Bahadur, his Aadhar Card, coloured photo, Driving License, Pen Card, ATM Card of Axis Bank and cash of Rs.640/- and two mobile phones have been seized. From Ramesh Kumar Dewangan, his Driving License, cash of Rs.280/-, one mobile phone and keys of the vehicle have been seized from him. After its seizure, various seizure memos have been prepared. 22. Upon searching the vehicle, alleged ganja was seized, which was wrapped in plastic packets and kept in 11 bags. The said plastic packets were counted as 280 packets and the seizure memo Exhibit P-14 was prepared in presence of the witnesses. The said ganja was identified by its smell, rubbing, and by burning, and Panchnama Exhibit P-15 was prepared. The seized ganja was weighed by the witness, and after its weighment, total 282.800 kg ganja was found. The weighment apparatus was physically verified, and thereafter, the seized ganja was weighed. A tarpaulin was opened on which the ganja of all the packets were mixed, and after mixing the said ganja, two samples of 100 gram each, was taken out and separately sealed. The remaining ganja was also refilled in 20 bags, and when the remaining ganja was weighed, it comes to 286.300 kg, in which the weight of ganja was 283.800 kg. The sample and the Samaras Panchnama is Exhibit P-19, which was prepared in presence of the witnesses. Another weighment Panchnama was prepared vide Exhibit P-20. The specimen seal Panchnama was also prepared vide Exhibit P-21. Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was also given to the accused persons regarding any document or its possession with them, in which they stated that they are not having any valid document of the said ganja. The ganja, sample packets and Scorpio vehicle was seized, and seizure memo Exhibit P-23 was prepared. The accused persons were arrested in presence of the witnesses. Spot maps were prepared. The ganja, sample packets and Scorpio vehicle was seized, and seizure memo Exhibit P-23 was prepared. The accused persons were arrested in presence of the witnesses. Spot maps were prepared. The information about arrest of the accused persons were given to their relatives. Dehati Nalisi was also recorded on the spot, which is Exhibit P-56. After seizing the alleged ganja, he returned back to the police station along with seized ganja, its sample, and Scorpio vehicle, and also along with the accused persons, and kept the seized articles in safe custody of Malkhana, and its acknowledgment is Exhibit P-57, thereafter, the FIR Exhibit P-58 was registered, and the inventory and detailed report has been sent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baikunthpur, through the police constable, and its acknowledgment is Exhibit P-50. 23. The sample packets of ganja were sent to the Regional FSL Ambikapur through the memo dated 02.06.2020, which is Exhibit P-60, and after its examination, report, Exhibit P-61 was received from the FSL Ambikapur. He made communication to the RTO Baikunthpur to obtain the details of the ownership of the Scorpio vehicle bearing No. CG-16/CL-8964, through the memo Exhibit P-62, and in a reply to that, the RTO Baikunthpur has furnished the details of the vehicle and name of its owner through its communication Exhibit P-63. For certification of seized Ganja and the process of its seizure, he made a communication to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Baikunthpur, through the communication Exhibit P-64, which was verified by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Court Campus Baikunthpur, who issued a certificate under Section 52A (3) of the NDPS Act, which is Exhibit P-65. During the verification/certification, the photographs were also taken, which is Exhibit P-66. Thereafter, he made a request to the Superintendent of Police Korea for handing over the case diary to any other officer for further investigation, in which the investigation of the case was handed over to the Inspector Mr. L.P. Patel vide Exhibit P-68. 24. During the verification/certification, the photographs were also taken, which is Exhibit P-66. Thereafter, he made a request to the Superintendent of Police Korea for handing over the case diary to any other officer for further investigation, in which the investigation of the case was handed over to the Inspector Mr. L.P. Patel vide Exhibit P-68. 24. The main objection of the appellants are that it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantity of contraband was seized from the exclusive possession of the accused persons and it was also necessary that all the seizures of the seizure memo and physically verification proceedings were conducted before any Magistrate, but in this case, the prosecution did not follow the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is also clear that the samples were not collected from all packets, which is clear from Samaras Panchnama, Exhibit P-19. 25. PW-10 Satyaprakash Tiwari has stated in his deposition that, on the spot itself, from the vehicle No. CG-16/CL-8964, total 280 bags of ganja were recovered, which were homogenized in presence of the witnesses as per Samaras Panchnama Exhibit P-19, the Identification Panchnama Exhibit P-15 and Samaras Panchnama Exhibit P-19. In the Identification Panchnama, it has been mentioned that seized ganja was kept in 280 small packets. The process of homogenization was in presence of the witnesses as per Samaras Panchnama Exhibit P-19, which bears his signature from C to C part. Signatures of the accused persons are in D to D, E to E, and F to F part. The relevant part of Exhibit P-19 reads as under:- 26. PW-10, in Para 25 of his deposition, has stated that, on the spot itself, the seized contraband ganja was weighed, which were found 286.300 kg, in which weight of ganja was found 283.800 gram. In Para 26, he stated that, after homogenizing the seized ganja, a weighment Panchnama was prepared vide Exhibit P-20 and two samples of 100 gram each were drawn from the homogenized ganja. It was sealed on the spot and the remaining ganja of 286.300 kg was separately refilled in 20 bags and the seizure memo Exhibit P-23 was prepared. 20 bags, in which seized ganja was refilled found marked as B-1 to B-20. The empty bags and empty plastic wrapper was also filled in two separate bags, which was also marked as B-21 and B-22. 27. 20 bags, in which seized ganja was refilled found marked as B-1 to B-20. The empty bags and empty plastic wrapper was also filled in two separate bags, which was also marked as B-21 and B-22. 27. It is the case of the appellants that the Investigating Officer has not complied with the Standing Order No. 1 of 89 and not taken sample from each of 280 packets. Total 280 packets of ganja was seized from the vehicle and only two samples were taken out from the ganja after mixing them, which is not permissible as per the law, though no procedure is prescribed either in the NDPS Act or in the NDPS Rules regarding the manner in which the samples are to be drawn but a Standing Order 1/89 has been issued by the Central Government in this regard, wherein general procedures for sampling, storage etc. have been given which reads as under : “2.1. All drug 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 witnesses (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 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 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. 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 contents 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 ten 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. Where after 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 would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. 2.7. If such remainder is 5 or 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 remainder package/ container. 2.8. While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must he ensured that representative samples in equal quantity are 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. 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 also bear the No. of the package(s)/ container(s) 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 along with test memos should be kept in another envelope which should also he sealed and marked "Secret Drug sample/Test memo", to be sent to the chemical laboratory concerned.” 28. From perusal of Instruction 2.4, it is evident that it is advisable to draw one sample in duplicate from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. From perusal of Instruction 2.4, it is evident that it is advisable to draw one sample in duplicate from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. Instruction 2.5 provides an exception to Instruction 2.4. It has been provided in Instruction 2.5 that when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings, and the contents 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 ten packages/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of such packages/ containers. For each such lot of packages/ containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 29. Thus, in the aforesaid situations, a representative sample can be drawn after bunching together the contents of numerous packages. The essential requirement before such an action of drawing a representative sample can be undertaken is that the contents of each package have to be subjected to colour test by U.N. drug testing Kit. Once the test is conducted and the result indicates that all the packages are identical in all respects, then a representative sample can be taken out after bunching the packages. Hence, the Investigating Officer was under an obligation to collect separate samples from each of the packets so that the analysis of the contents of each of the packets could be performed individually. As the investigating officer before drawing the samples, proceeded to mix the contents of the all the packets without subjecting them to the test by the U.N. Kit, the accused has a right to contend that one of the packets might not have contained contraband ganja. If at all the prosecution desired to prove that all the packets contained ganja, then it was essential for the samples to have been collected and analysed individually from all the packets or else, the test by U.N. Kit should have been carried out on the material present in all the packets. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered a similar issue in the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa reported in AIR 1993 SC 1456 and observed as below:- “5. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered a similar issue in the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa reported in AIR 1993 SC 1456 and observed as below:- “5. We shall first consider whether the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had in his possession two pieces of Charas weighing 7 gms. and 5 gms. respectively. As already mentioned only one piece was sent for chemical analysis and P.W.1 the Junior Scientific Officer who examined the same found it to contain Charas but it was less than 5 gms. From this report alone it cannot be presumed or inferred that the substance in other piece weighing 7 gms. also contained Charas. It has to be borne in mind that the Act applies to certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and not all other kinds of intoxicating substances. In any event in the absence of positive proof that both the pieces recovered from the accused contained Charas only, it is not safe to hold that 12 gms. of Charas was recovered from the accused. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 it must be held that the prosecution has proved positively that Charas weighing about 4.570 gms. was recovered from the accused. The failure to send the other piece has given rise to this inference. We have to observe that to obviate this difficulty, the concerned authorities would do better if they send the entire quantity seized for chemical analysis so that there may not be any dispute of this nature regarding the quantity seized. If it is not practicable in a given case, to send the entire quantity then sufficient quantity by way of samples from each of the packets of pieces recovered should be sent for chemical examination under a regular panchnama and as per the provisions of law.” 30. It is further the case of the appellants that both the independent witnesses in the case PW-1, Sunil Kumar, and PW-2, Mahendra Rajwade, have been turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. They have admitted their signatures over the documents Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-29, and said that on the instance of the police, they have signed those documents and they are totally unaware about any incident of the seizure of the ganja from the accused persons. 31. They have admitted their signatures over the documents Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-29, and said that on the instance of the police, they have signed those documents and they are totally unaware about any incident of the seizure of the ganja from the accused persons. 31. In the matter of Sanjeet Kumar Singh @ Munna Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 724 in Para 30 to 33-A of that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the effect of the evidence of independent witnesses, who has not supported the prosecution's case and held that if the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case, the entire case of the prosecution about search and seizure is doubtful and for that benefit goes to the accused. Para 30 to 33 of said judgment is as under:- “30. Exhibit C-2 is the notice served on the appellant herein (A-1) under Section 50 of the Act. The time shown therein is 18:00 hrs. This notice requires the appellant to indicate whether he would like to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. It is also stated in the notice that the contents thereof were read over in the presence of witnesses. Exhibit C-3 is the consent Panchnama of the appellant agreeing to be searched by the police officer. This Panchnama contains the names of Sunil Malghani and Firuturam Banware (CWs 1 and 2). Even the search Panchnama of the accused marked as Exhibit C-4 refers to the presence of CWs 1 and 2 at the time of search. 31. Therefore, it is clear that the I.O. examined as PW-7 claims to have done everything only in the presence of independent witnesses. But those independent witnesses not merely denied their presence and participation but also came up with an explanation as to how their signatures found a place in those documents. 32. In such circumstances, a serious doubt is cast on the very search and seizure allegedly made by PW-7. But unfortunately, both the Special Court and the High Court went by the law in theory, without applying the same to the facts of the case. 33. Right from the beginning, the co-accused Reena Das (A-2) was implicated at every stage. Admittedly, the information received by PW-7 at 16:50 hrs. on 31.05.2014 contained a reference to the appellant as well as the co-accused Reena Das. 33. Right from the beginning, the co-accused Reena Das (A-2) was implicated at every stage. Admittedly, the information received by PW-7 at 16:50 hrs. on 31.05.2014 contained a reference to the appellant as well as the co-accused Reena Das. But for some strange reason, PW-7 chose to serve a notice under Section 50 of the Act only on the appellant and not on the co-accused. PW-7 also omitted deliberately or otherwise, to record, (i) the consent Panchnama of co-accused; (ii) the search Panchnama of the coaccused; and (iii) the recovery Panchnama in relation to the co-accused. This led to the Special Court acquitting the co-accused. It is quite strange that, (i) the information received by PW-7, (ii) the FIR; and (iii) the charge-12 sheet implicated the co-accused, but the prosecution accepted the finding of the Special Court that there could have been no recovery from the co-accused despite the fact that she was also travelling in the same car. 33-A. It is true that Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband. But to raise the presumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused. The moment a doubt is cast upon the most fundamental aspect, namely the search and seizure, the appellant, in our considered opinion will also be entitled to the same benefit as given by the Special Court to the co-accused.” 32. In the matter of Makhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 247 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 16 of the judgment as follows:- 16. ……… In the absence of independent evidence connecting the appellant with the fitter-rehra, mere compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act by itself would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. It is a well-settled principle of the criminal jurisprudence that more stringent the punishment, the more heavy is the burden upon the prosecution to prove the offence. When the independent witnesses, PW1 and DW2 have not supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the contraband has not been satisfactorily proved, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.” 33. When the independent witnesses, PW1 and DW2 have not supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the contraband has not been satisfactorily proved, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.” 33. Another grounds raised by the appellants are that the samples drawn from the ganja on the spot were not marked with any particular mark, whereas the samples, which were reached at the FSL were found to be marked as S-1 and S-2, therefore, the possibility of tampering with the samples ruled out. The Investigating Officer PW-10 Satyaprakash Tiwari in Para 75 of his deposition stated that the samples do not bear any identification mark. In Para 80 also, he again stated that there is no identification mark in the sample. 34. From perusal of the FSL report Exhibit P-61, it appears that the sample received by the FSL bears with the mark S-1 and S-2, for which there is no explanation by the prosecution as to at what point of time the said sample packets were marked as S-1 and S-2, or whether the sample which has been separated from the seized ganja on the spot was actually been sent for FSL examination. 35. Thus, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the fact that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case. The sample packets were reached at FSL having marked with S-1 and S-2, whereas there is no marking at the time of its taking out and sealing on the spot, the manner in which the investigation was carried out where the investigating officer has failed to comply with the instructions given in Standing Order No. 1 of 89, keeping in view the settled legal position referred to above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Being so, the learned trial Court was not justified in recording conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 36. In the result, both the criminal appeals are allowed giving benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 21.10.2022 passed by trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charge of Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 36. In the result, both the criminal appeals are allowed giving benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 21.10.2022 passed by trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charge of Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. They are reported to be in jail since 04.01.2020, therefore, they be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. 37. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., the appellants 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/- with one reliable surety each 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 38. The trial Court records alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.