JUDGMENT : K.SURENDER, J. 1. The appellants 1 and 2 were convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years vide judgment in S.C.No.51 of 2012, dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases (I-Additional Sessions Judge) Warangal. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed. 2. During pendency of the appeal, the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, through letter dated 12.08.2024 informed that the 2 nd appellant/A2 died on 30.05.2017. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal was dismissed as abated in respect of 2 nd appellant/A2 by this Court on 02.09.2024. 3. Heard, Sri A.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, who was on patrolling duty on 06.03.2012. About 2.45 p.m, he along with other police reached Hanamkonda Bus Stand and near plot form No.8, they found two persons, i.e., A1 and A2, carrying two bags. P.W.1 and others stopped A1 and A2 and the bags were weighed. Each bag was 8 kgs. Three samples of 100 grams were drawn from each bag. P.W.1 then prepared Ex.P1 panchanama. P.W.1 marked MO1 during investigation, which is sample collected during proceedings. 5. P.W.2, who was running Kirana Shop at the local Bus stand is a witness to the appellants being caught by the police men. P.W.3 is an independent witness, who was called by the police. According to him, in his presence Ex.P1 panchanama and Ex.P2 seizure panchanama were prepared. P.W.4 is the Tahsildar. According to him, he went to the Bus stand, where A1 and A2 allegedly confessed that they purchased ganja from A3 to A5. According to P.W.4, three samples from each bag were collected and thereafter, property was kept in safe custody of the police. 6. P.W.5 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.6 is the photographer. P.W.7 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.8 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who received Ex.P3 report from P.W.1. He registered the case and effected arrest of A1 and A2. On 08.03.2012, P.W.8 sent samples to the Chemical Engineer through SDPO, Hanamkonda. Ex.P8 is the copy of letter of advise dated 06.03.2012. P.W.6 is the photographer. P.W.7 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.8 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who received Ex.P3 report from P.W.1. He registered the case and effected arrest of A1 and A2. On 08.03.2012, P.W.8 sent samples to the Chemical Engineer through SDPO, Hanamkonda. Ex.P8 is the copy of letter of advise dated 06.03.2012. P.W.8/investigating officer, arrested A3, A4 and A5, on the basis of information given by A1 & A2. 7. P.W.9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who collected FSL report Ex.P9. Exs.P10 and P11 are the photographs of destruction of the contraband seized from A1 & A2. 8. Learned Sessions Judge found favour with the prosecution case and accordingly, convicted A1 and A2. However, A3 to A5 were acquitted, since they were arrayed as Accused only on the basis of confession of A1 and A2. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 would submit that the procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the Act was not followed. In the absence of following the procedure, the conviction has to be set aside. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, [2023 LawSuit (SC) 859] held as follows: “8. In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the decision of this Court in Mohanlal's case, it was held thus: “15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)include (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true, and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the police station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with subsections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure.” 9. Hence, the act of PW-7 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohanlal1 . This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband.” 10. Having perused the record, P.W.8/Investigating Officer stated that on 08.03.2012, he sent samples to Chemical Engineer through SDPO. Ex.P8 is the copy of letter of advise. However, Ex.P8 is dated 06.03.2012 and signed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanamkonda. In the said Ex.P8 at serial No.5 only two items which are “Item No.1 sample dry ganja collected from 8 kgs seized ganja from the possession of A1. Item No.2: Sample dry ganja collected from 8 kgs seized ganja from the possession of A2” is shown. However, in the FSL report, it is mentioned that the dispatch letter is dated 26.03.2012 and six samples were received. Item No.2: Sample dry ganja collected from 8 kgs seized ganja from the possession of A2” is shown. However, in the FSL report, it is mentioned that the dispatch letter is dated 26.03.2012 and six samples were received. It is not clear as to what was received by the FSL on 26.03.2012 when the letter of advise is dated 06.03.2012. Further, P.W.8 stated that the samples were sent through SDPO. However, the said SDPO is not examined nor any document filed by prosecution reflects that the samples were forwarded by SDPO. Further, in the FSL report, Ex.P9, the description of the property is as follows: “Received six sealed paper covers each sealed with five seals, which are intact and tallying with the sample seal labeled as “Cr.No.89/2012, U/s.8(c) r/w 20 of NDPS Act of PS Hanamkonda” described below through Sri N.Srinivas, PC 2634 on 23/04/2012”. 11. The letter of advise is dated 06.03.2012 and dispatch letter in FSL is dated 26.03.2012, however, the report Ex.P9 reads that the samples were received through the PC on 23.04.2012. The said discrepancy is not explained by the Investigating Officer. The Chemical Examiner was not examined during the course of trial. 12. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.8 stated about depositing the samples before the Court for the purpose of inventory and sampling in accordance with Section 52-A of the Act. Though the photographs are filed to show that the contraband was destroyed, however, the orders for destruction also do not form part of the record. 13. According to P.W.1, six samples were drawn, however, Ex.P8 reflects that two samples are sent to FSL. In the trial Court, MO1 was marked as a sample. Where from the sample MO1, was produced is not clear, when six samples were drawn. None of the witnesses stated that one sample or the seventh sample was taken and deposited in the Court. In view of the said discrepancies and also following the judgment of Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab’s case (supra), when the procedure under Section 52-A of the Act was not followed, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 14. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.51 of 2012, dated 30.10.2013 is set aside and the appellant/A1 is acquitted. 15. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. 16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.