JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in NDPS Case No. 04 of 2009 on 30.11.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. On 21.03.2009, the complainant Munafkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan, who was working as a PSI in the Special Operation Group (SOG), Vadodara (Rural) had received secret information that the accused, who was a resident of Ikhar, Shahenshahnagri , Taluka-Amod, District-Bharuch, was having cannabis in his possession and he was to go on his white silver color Bajaj Platinum motorcycle No.GJ-16-AE-2726 with the contraband of cannabis from the outskirts of Mangrol village towards Sapa village. As per the information, the accused had worn spectacles, was bearded and had worn a light blue color shirt and black pant and immediately after the information was received, the complainant informed his Superior Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Vadodara (Rural) on the telephone and left along with the staff members for a raid. At around 20:15 hours, they found the accused going towards Sapa village with his motorcycle No.GJ-16-AE-2726 and on the hook of the seat were two plastic bags. The accused was stopped and after the due procedure, it was found that the accused had 1000 grams of cannabis in one bag and 980 grams of cannabis in the other bag and as the contraband was found from the conscious possession of the accused, the complainant filed the complaint at the Karjan Police Station under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act, which came to be registered at Karjan Police Station II-CR No.51 of 2009. 2.2. 2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Special NDPS Case No. 09 of 2011. 2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.4, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 25 documentary evidence in support of the case. 2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit to the accused from the offence. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective. There are directed and indirect evidence connecting the respondent with the offence without appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way the learned Trial Court has arrived at conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses which has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses which has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal without giving any cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State. Though served, the respondent – accused has not appeared either in-person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused. 6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) …….. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreci-ate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre- sumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre- sumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. 8 . As per the settled principles of law in acquittal appeal, the evidence of the prosecution on record is re- appreciated and PW-1 Ranchhodbhai Ratilal Variya examined at Exh.11 and PW-2 Bipinbhai Purshottambhai Patel examined at Exh.18 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.13. 8 . As per the settled principles of law in acquittal appeal, the evidence of the prosecution on record is re- appreciated and PW-1 Ranchhodbhai Ratilal Variya examined at Exh.11 and PW-2 Bipinbhai Purshottambhai Patel examined at Exh.18 are the panch witnesses of the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.13. Both of the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned APP. The panchnama at Exh.13 is the panchnama, by which, before leaving for the raid, the panch witnesses were called and they were explained about the raid and the panch witnesses along with the police staff of SOG, Unarmed Head Constable Hasmukhrai Vithalrai - Buckle No.962, Unarmed Head Constable Somabhai Manchabhai - Buckle No. 1637, Unarmed Head Constable Mahendrabhai Tribhuvanbhai - Buckle No.1135, Unarmed Head Constable Surendrasingh Dalpatsingh - Buckle No.1629, Unarmed Police Constable Laxman Sivdesi - Buckle No.1422, Unarmed Police Constable Bhagwansinh Bhupatsinh - Buckle No.1664, Unarmed Police Constable Narvatsinh Shravanbhai - Buckle No.953, Unarmed Police Constable Shailesh B. Ramabhai - Buckle No.1197, Unarmed Police Constable Manishbhai Jayantibhai - Buckle No.153, the complainant PSI Munafkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan and Circle Police Inspector G.D. Thakor went for a raid. The preliminary panchnama was drawn, and thereafter, they went for the raid and the procedure undertaken by them is narrated in the panchnama. 8.1. PW-3 Bharatbhai Rameshbhai Purohit examined at Exh.19 is the panch witness of the panchnama, by which, the muddamal was seized in the presence of panch witnesses, which is produced at Exh.20. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 8.2. PW-4 Munafkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan examined at Exh.22 is the complainant, who has narrated the entire procedure from the time that he had received the secret information to the time that the raid was organized and the accused was found with the contraband, which was weighed by an independent person, and thereafter, the complaint was filed which is produced at Exh.23. The witness has also produced the yadi, by which, the panch witnesses were called for at Exh.24 and the telephone information, by which, the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory was called at Exh.25. The witness has also produced the yadi, by which, the panch witnesses were called for at Exh.24 and the telephone information, by which, the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory was called at Exh.25. In the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that his office and the office of his Superior Officer is at the same place and the distance between Por and Karjan is about 15 to 17 kilometers. The witness has stated that he cannot say the exact time when he had received the secret information and he had made a telephone call to Circle Police Inspector Thakor and called him at Por. Sahyog Hotel i.e. the place where the preliminary panchnama was drawn is a public place and there were a lot of vehicles moving around and they found the place convenient to him and Circle Police Inspector Thakor also. The panch witnesses were called but he did not verify the panch witnesses and he cannot say whether Circle Police Inspector Thakor verified the panch witnesses. The witness has stated that they did not try to record the secret information and when they reached Miyagam, the panch witnesses came to know about the secret information. They did not make any efforts to inform the Superintendent of Police about the information at Por, and in all, they had nine staff members at ‘Sahyog Hotel’ and if a person was sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police, it would take about half an hour. They waited at ‘Sahyog Hotel’ for about half an hour and he informed the Circle Police Inspector about the secret information after the accused had arrived. The information as per Section 50 was given to the accused but during the search of the accused, no such document was found on him. The photographs that were taken on the spot were taken by a Government employee, who had come along with the Forensic Science Laboratory Officer, and the branches, leaves and seeds were analyzed and it was found that it was cannabis. There are many shops at Miyagam and many shops between Miyagam and Karjan and Somabai, the person who was called to weigh the contraband was from Karjan. Both the bags were with moisture when they were weighed and there would be a difference in the weight and of leaves with moisture and dried leaves. There are many shops at Miyagam and many shops between Miyagam and Karjan and Somabai, the person who was called to weigh the contraband was from Karjan. Both the bags were with moisture when they were weighed and there would be a difference in the weight and of leaves with moisture and dried leaves. The muddamal was put in jars and, thereafter, in cloth bags and a laq seal was put on the bag after placing the panch slip with the signatures of the panch witnesses and the Circle Police Inspector. One seal was placed on each muddamal and articles marked “A1” and “B1” were the articles to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and articles marked “A2” and “B2” were the reserve samples. The signature of the accused was not taken on the samples and the complaint was filed on the spot, and at that time, the panchnama was with Circle Police Inspector Thakor. 8.3. PW-5 Dhanjibhai Narottambhai Chauhan examined at Exh.26 is the Crime Writer Head and he has stated that on 21.03.2009 he was handed over two transparent plastic jars, which were the muddamal of Karjan Police Station II-CR No.51 of 2009, on which, there was the seal of PSI, SOG. The jars were sealed and along with the jars a Nokia mobile phone and a motorcycle was also handed over as the muddamal. The entry was made in the Muddamal Register and the extract of the muddamal, which is Entry No. 30 is produced at Exh.27. During the cross-examination the witness has admitted that he did not weigh the muddamal and he did not open the cloth and see the muddamal and did not verify whether the jars were transparent. He did not mention. in which language was the seal and the jars were in the cloth bag and he had received them sealed with two seals on each bag. 8.4. PW-6 Indrasinh Mansinh Kher, Buckle No.170, examined at Exh.21 is the Beat Constable, who had taken the muddamal from Crime Writer Head Karjan, Police Station and handed over the muddamal to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The witness has stated that he took the muddamal and reached Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar at 11:45 hours and the samples were handed over and a receipt from the Forensic Science Laboratory Gandhinagar is produced at Exh.29. The witness has stated that he took the muddamal and reached Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar at 11:45 hours and the samples were handed over and a receipt from the Forensic Science Laboratory Gandhinagar is produced at Exh.29. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he had accepted the muddamal after an entry was made in the muddamal register and muddamal article marked “A2” and “B2” were not accepted and mentioned in the register. He did not accept any muddamal that was sealed in cloth bags and on the muddamal articles marked “A2” and “B2” one seal was affixed. No muddamal with more than one seal was handed over by him to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 8.5. PW-7 Kaushik Gajananbhai Gandhi examined at Exh.30 was the owner of “Shriram General Store” and on 21.03.2009, he was called by the police with his electric weighing scale and he had gone to the spot and weighed the muddamal. The witness has stated that in one bag, there was 1000 grams and, in the other, there was 980 grams and he had weighed that contraband and given a certificate, which is produced at Exh.31. In the cross-examination the witness has stated that he does not know whether the muddamal was with moisture or dry and in the certificate states that 100 grams from each bag was taken as a sample. In his deposition, he has stated that the samples were filled up in jars but he does not know, who had packed the jars and sealed them. Both the plastic bags had some leaves and he had separately weighed them. Head Constable Somabhai had showed him the bike, the muddamal and the accused and when he reached the spot, the accused was standing near the bike and four to five policemen were surrounding him. From his shop to the place where he was called is the bazaar and there are many shops in that bazaar and other persons with weighing scales would be easily available at Miyagam, Sapa and Mangrol. He does not know who had sealed the plastic jars and who had filled the contents in the plastic jars. 8.6. PW-8 Govindbhai Devsibhai Thakor examined at Exh.35 is the Circle Police Inspector, who had gone along with the complainant at the time of the raid. He does not know who had sealed the plastic jars and who had filled the contents in the plastic jars. 8.6. PW-8 Govindbhai Devsibhai Thakor examined at Exh.35 is the Circle Police Inspector, who had gone along with the complainant at the time of the raid. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that after the muddamal was weighed 100 grams of samples were taken and placed in two separate jars and the remaining sample of 800 grams and 780 grams were placed in different jars. The jar with 800 grams was marked “A”, and the 100 grams of reserve sample was marked “A1” and “A2” for the reserve sample and the sample for Forensic Science Laboratory respectively. Similarly, the jar with 780 grams was marked “B” and the reserve sample and the sample for Forensic Science Laboratory of 100 grams each were marked “B1” and “B2”. The witness has produced the intimation as per section 42 at Exh.36 and other relevant documents at Exh.36 to 54. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the complainant was at a post inferior to him and when he met the complainant at ‘Sahyog Hotel’, he did not tell him that he was in the jurisdiction of Karjan Police Station area. The secret information was received orally and the time and day of the raid was decided by the complainant. The witness has admitted that after the raid was conducted and the accused was arrested, the complaint was registered and the entire procedure was completed, but the Superior Officer was not informed within 72 hours. He does not remember how many seals were affixed on the muddamal and there are many corrections in the panchnama, but his initials have not been taken on the same. 8.7. PW-9, Maheshbhai Vihabhai Padvi examined at Exh.47 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the entire procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross- examination, the witness has stated that he did not seize any evidence that the secret information received by the complainant PSI Munafkhan Pathan was taken down in writing and there was no evidence that PSI Munafkhan Pathan had a conversation with the concerned Superintendent of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police. During investigation, no information was found as to where was the accused going and whom was to he meet at Sapa village. During investigation, no information was found as to where was the accused going and whom was to he meet at Sapa village. Moreover, there was no evidence that after the raid PSI Munafkhan Pathan or Circle Police Inspector Thakor had sent a report as per Section-57 of the Act to the office of the Superintendent of Police and that the information was received by the office of the Superintendent of Police. 8.8. PW-10 Gauhar Alikhan Shahadat Ali was working as the PSO on 21.03.2009 at Karjan Police Station and he had registered the complaint of the complainant at Karjan Police Station II-CR No.51 of 2009 under Section 8(c) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act. 9. At this juncture it will be fit to reproduce Section 42 of the NDPS Act which reads as under: “42. 9. At this juncture it will be fit to reproduce Section 42 of the NDPS Act which reads as under: “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation:— (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military 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 personal 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. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-Section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. As per the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, when any officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, in respect of which an offence under this Act has been committed, the officer has to take down the same in writing and within 72 hours, has to send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. 9.1. On perusal of the record of the evidence, it is on record that the Superior Officer of the complainant – PW4 - Munafkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan was at the same place but the information was not taken down and not sent to the Superior Officer. The complainant has stated that he had informed his Superior Officer by telephone but there is no iota of evidence to this effect on record. As per his say of the complainant, he immediately made a telephone call to Circle Police Inspector - Thakor and they met at Sahyog Hotel at Por. The panch witnesses were called but the panch witnesses were not verified by either the complainant or Circle Police Inspector - Thakor. It is also on record that from Sahyog Hotel, if a person was sent to the office of the Superintendent of Police, it would take about half an hour and they waited for about half an hour at the Sahyog Hotel but even though there were a number of staff members, none of them were sent to give the information to the Superior Officer. 9.2. As far as the application of laq seals on the muddamaal is concerned, there are contradictory evidences on record and after the muddamaal was seized, the muddamaal was weighed by PW7 - Kaushik Gajanandbhai Gandhi who has stated that 100 grams of muddamaal was taken from each bag as a sample. As per the evidence of PW4 - Munafkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan, two samples of 100 grams each were taken from each bag and from the first bag, the main muddamaal was marked ‘A’ and the two samples of 100 grams each were marked ‘A1’ and ‘A2’. As per the evidence of PW4 - Munafkhan Ibrahimkhan Pathan, two samples of 100 grams each were taken from each bag and from the first bag, the main muddamaal was marked ‘A’ and the two samples of 100 grams each were marked ‘A1’ and ‘A2’. Similarly, the muddamaal from the second bag was marked ‘B’ and the two samples taken were marked ‘B1’ and ‘B2’. The muddamaal was put in jars and thereafter in cloth bags and the laq seal was put on the bag. PW6 - Indrasinh Manasinh Kher, Buckle No. 170 - the Beat Constable who had taken the muddamaal from Crime Writer Head, Arjan Police Station and and handed it over to the Forensic Science Laboratory, has also confirmed that only one seal was affixed on the articles marked ‘A2’ and ‘B2’. The prosecution has produced the report of the FSL at Exh. 50 and as per the description of muddamaal, the parcel marked ‘A2’ and parcel marked ‘B2’ had three seals on each parcel, each weighing 100 grams. There is no explanation regarding how three seals came to be affixed on the muddamaal that was sent to the FSL and the panchnama produced at Exh. 20 also states that the muddamaal had only one seal each. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kailas s/o Bajirao Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 914 in para 31 has observed as under: “31. In the light of the discussion above, in our view, mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material. However, to ensure that no adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for non- production of the seized contraband, documents prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 52-A, inter alia, evidencing preparation of inventory of seized contraband and drawing of samples therefrom, would have to be brought on record. Likewise, evidence should be there that the sample drawn from the inventory was sent to FSL in a sealed container/ envelop, as per guidelines, and that the seal was found intact at the end of FSL. This is to obviate any doubt regarding sample being tampered in transit. Likewise, evidence should be there that the sample drawn from the inventory was sent to FSL in a sealed container/ envelop, as per guidelines, and that the seal was found intact at the end of FSL. This is to obviate any doubt regarding sample being tampered in transit. Similarly, FSL's report along with the sample tested by it is to be placed on record so that there remains no doubt regarding the sample tested. In light of the above, as there are major contradictions in the evidence on record regarding the seals on the muddamaal and there is no explanation forthcoming as to how when one seal was affixed on the muddamaal during the panchnama, how three seals were found on the muddamaal when it reached the FSL. There is no evidence as to whether the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were scrupulously followed and the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in detail and considering the provisions of law as also the decisions of the Apex Court, has passed the impugned order. 11. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 12. The judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and 6 th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in NDPS Case No. 04 of 2009 on 30.11.2011 is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.