JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 1. Since the above-captioned appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 14.02.2023 passed in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. H-16/2020 by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund (C.G.) and since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. H-16/2020 by which the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.07.2020, Assistant Sub Inspector Sushil Sharma of Police Station Komakhan received information from the informer that 02 persons in a white colored pickup were traveling from Orissa to Chhattisgarh. On the information that they were carrying psychotropic substances, after giving notices under Section 160 CrPC vide Ex.P-1 to Kanhaiya Lal Dhiwar and vide Ex.P- 24 to Mukesh Yadav for confirmation of the information and after registering it in the Rojnamcha Sanha and without duly preparing the Informer Information Panchnama (Ex.P-2) and Without Warrant Search panchnama (Ex.P-3), along with accompanying staff and witnesses, reached the spot and set up a blockade. During the blockade, a white color Pickup Vehicle Bolero Maxi Truck Plus Number U.P. 81 BT 0712 coming from Orissa side was stopped in which two persons were found. On being interrogated, the driver revealed his name as Rajkumar Sharma and the person sitting next to him revealed his name as Madan Mohan Sharma. On being asked what was in the sack kept in his vehicle and where were they coming from, they told that they were carrying ganja from Muniguda (Orissa) to Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh). After given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the accused for search vide Ex.P-4 their consent was taken vide Ex.P-5. After searching of police party vide Ex.P-6 and witnesses vide Ex.P-7, Search Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. 4. After given notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the accused for search vide Ex.P-4 their consent was taken vide Ex.P-5. After searching of police party vide Ex.P-6 and witnesses vide Ex.P-7, Search Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. 4. On searching the said vehicle Bolero Maxi Truck Plus No. U.P. 81 BT0712 and after finding 34 packets wrapped in brown colored polythene in 03 sacks, totaling 100 kg of intoxicant like ganja, Recovery Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-9. In the presence of witnesses, illegal narcotic substances like ganja recovered from the vehicle jointly owned by the accused were mixed together, some quantity of it was rubbed, smelled, sniffed and burnt and it was found that it contained narcotic substances and Identification Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-10. Notice under Section 91 CrPC was given to the accused vide Ex.P-11 for producing documents in relation to said contraband articles. The substance was found to be marijuana. Notice to weigher (taulkarta) Jitendra Dhiwar was given vide Ex.P-22, his statement was recorded vide Ex.P-23. Thereafter, on being checked the electronic weighing machine brought by weigher Jitendra Dhiwar when it was found to be correct, Physical verification of scales Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-12. On weighing, the illegal drug ganja recovered from the vehicle jointly owned by the accused at the spot itself, it was found to be 100 kg and thereafter, narcotic substance weight panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-13. After which two samples of 100 grams each were taken out of the recovered ganja and Samras Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-14 and Sample Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P15. Statement of witness Kanhaiyalal Dhiwar was recorded vide Ex.P-21 and statement of witness Mukesh Yadav was recorded vide Ex.P-25. At the spot itself, 100 kg of narcotic ganja in the joint possession of the accused and two samples packets of 100 grams each prepared from it, 03 sacks containing intoxicants like ganja kept in the vehicle of the accused, Bolero Maxi Truck Plus No. UP-81-BT- 0712, two mobile phones and cash of Rs. 5700/- were seized from the joint possession of the accused and a seizure sheet was prepared vide Ex.P-18 and Search Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-17. Thereafter, the seized articles were sealed in front of the accused and the witnesses and Sample Seal Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-16. 5700/- were seized from the joint possession of the accused and a seizure sheet was prepared vide Ex.P-18 and Search Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-17. Thereafter, the seized articles were sealed in front of the accused and the witnesses and Sample Seal Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-16. A notice for preparing spot map was given to the Tahsildar, Bagbahra vide Ex.P-46 and thereafter a visual map of the incident site was prepared by the concerned Patwari vide Ex.P-29. When evidence of the crime was found against the accused Rajkumar Sharma and Madan Mohan Sharma, they were arrested in front of the witnesses, arrest sheets were prepared vide Exs.P-19 & P-20 respectively and their parents were informed about their arrest vide Exs. P-41A and P-42 respectively. 5. After completion of process, zero dehati nalishi (Ex.P-43) was registered and crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-41. Panchnama (Ex.P-33) and inventory of the proceedings (Ex.P-34)were prepared through the concerned Executive Magistrate. After returning to Komakhan Police Station, a First Information Report was registered against the accused under Crime No. 151 of 2020 under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act vide Ex.P-44. A report of the entire proceedings was prepared vide Ex.P-27 and sent to SDOP Office Bagbehra. The sample of seized ganja was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for testing and as per the FSL test report (Ex.P-45) received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur the seized contraband article was found to be ganja. After thorough investigation, evidence of crime was found against the accused and the charge- sheet was presented against them in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act) Mahasamund on 17.11.2020. 6. The charges were read over to the appellants they denied the same and claimed trial. When the accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, they declared themselves as innocent and though stated that they have been falsely implicated, but no defense evidence was presented by them. 7. 6. The charges were read over to the appellants they denied the same and claimed trial. When the accused were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, they declared themselves as innocent and though stated that they have been falsely implicated, but no defense evidence was presented by them. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses i.e. Kanhaiya Lal Dhiwar (PW-1), Jitendra Dhiwar (PW-2), Mukesh Yadav (PW-3), Constable, Falesh Kumar Verma (PW- 4), Assistant Sub Inspector Shobha Ram Bervanshi (PW-5) posted as Reader in SDOP Office Bagbahra, Patwari, Kanti Kumar Yadav (PW- 6), Constable, Toshram Diwan (PW-7), Constable, Chumman Lal Diwan (PW-8), the then Naib Tehsildar, Ramkhilawan Verma (PW-9), Constable, Bhuneshwar Banjare (PW-10), Constable, Sahida Begum (PW-11), Investigating Officer, Sushil Sharma (PW-12), SDOP, Litesh Singh (PW-13) and Inspector, Pradeep Minj (PW-14) and exhibited 47 documents Exs.P-1 to P-47. 8. Statement of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. However, they examined none in their defence. 9. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.02.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal. 10. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain and Ms. Kiran Jain, learned counsel for appellant Rajkumar Sharma (in Cr.A. No. 565/2023) submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act has not been followed by the Investigating Officer. The witnesses of search and seizure PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal Dhiwar and PW-3 Mukesh Yadav have not supported the case of the prosecution, as such, the statement of Investigating Officer is not find corroborate with the statement of independent witnesses. The witness of weight panchnama, PW-2, Jitendra Dhiwar has also not supported the case of prosecution. They further submit that the Investigating Officer not comply with the Standing Order 1/89 and not taken sample from each packet. According to the prosecution, 34 packet of ganja was seized from the vehicle and only two samples were taken out from the contraband. The sample of contraband was not immediately sent to FSL for chemical examination and it sent to FSL on 24.08.2020 and delay in sending is not explained by the Investigating Officer. According to the prosecution, 34 packet of ganja was seized from the vehicle and only two samples were taken out from the contraband. The sample of contraband was not immediately sent to FSL for chemical examination and it sent to FSL on 24.08.2020 and delay in sending is not explained by the Investigating Officer. They also submit that the Investigating Officer PW-12 Sushil Sharma had given joint notice under Section 91 of CrPC and Section 50 of the NDPS Act to both the accused persons, which cause great prejudice to the appellant. They contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the 100 kg of ganja was seized from the possession of the appellant and other accused, because according to weight Panchnama (Ex.P-13), 100 kg, ganja was seized and according to PW-9 Ramkhilawan Verma, the Naib Tehsildar, who conducted compliance U/s 52 of the NDPS Act, found the weight of contraband to be 95 kg. They further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. They placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in CRA No. 718 of 2022 (Bhupendra Singh @ Rana) decided on 22.01.2024 11. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhauri, learned counsel for Appellant-Madan Mohan Sharma (in Cr.A No. 1196/2023) submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the trial Court without appreciating the Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 which has been framed by Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act with regard to disposal of seized Narcotics Drug Phototropic Substance has convicted the appellant. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Amani Filedl Chris Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2020 12. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. Independent witnesses Kanhaiya lal Dhiwar (PW-1) and Mukesh Yadav (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case. Witness of weighing Jitendra Dhiwar (PW-2) has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 14. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. Independent witnesses Kanhaiya lal Dhiwar (PW-1) and Mukesh Yadav (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case. Witness of weighing Jitendra Dhiwar (PW-2) has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 14. In this way, the prosecution story regarding the action taken at the spot by the panch witnesses and the weigher in the case has not been supported. Now, it is worth considering in the case that if the fact of seizure of drug Ganja has not been proved by the independent witnesses, then whether the evidence of the police witnesses presented by the prosecution can be believed. In this regard, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many judicial precedents that if the evidence of police witnesses is worthy of belief then the accused can be convicted on the basis of their reliable evidence also. Similarly, the judicial precedent Nathusingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2783 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that there is no law that the statement of a police officer or excise officer cannot be accepted in the absence of support. If the police officer’s single evidence is of such a quality that it cannot disbelieved, then on the basis of his sole evidence, a conclusion can be drawn about the recovery of something (narcotic substance). In the context of the opinion expressed in the above honorable judicial precedents, it is now to be considered whether as per the evidence in the case, the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation by following the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act which is supported by other evidence in the case. 15. At this stage it has to be seen as to whether as per the provision of Section 42 (1) of the NDPS Act, the Investigating Officer, Sushil Sharma, Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police Department is allowed to investigate or not ? 16. Section 42 (1) of the NDPS Act is reproduced hereunder: - “42. 15. At this stage it has to be seen as to whether as per the provision of Section 42 (1) of the NDPS Act, the Investigating Officer, Sushil Sharma, Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police Department is allowed to investigate or not ? 16. Section 42 (1) of the NDPS Act is reproduced hereunder: - “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.- (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including 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 persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,- (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances, granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised 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. 17. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that under Section 42 only officers mentioned therein and so empowered officers can make the arrest or search as provided if they have reason to believe from personal knowledge or information qua offence(s). In both these provisions there are two important requirements. One is that the Magistrate or the officers mentioned therein firstly be empowered and they must have reason to believe that an offence under Chapter IV has been committed or that such arrest or search was necessary for other purposes mentioned in the provision. It has been held in paragraph 11 of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299 as under: - “11. But there are certain other embargoes envisaged under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act. Only a Magistrate so empowered under Section 41 can issue a warrant for arrest and search where he has reason to believe that an offence under Chapter IV has been committed so on and so forth as mentioned therein. Under sub-section (2) only a Gazetted Officer or other officers mentioned and empowered therein can give an authorization to a subordinate to arrest and search if such officer has reason to believe about the commission of an offence and after reducing the information, if any, into writing. Under Section 42 only officers mentioned therein and so empowered can make the arrest or search as provided if they have reason to believe from personal knowledge or information. In both these provisions there are two important requirements. Under Section 42 only officers mentioned therein and so empowered can make the arrest or search as provided if they have reason to believe from personal knowledge or information. In both these provisions there are two important requirements. One is that the Magistrate or the officers mentioned therein firstly be empowered and they must have reason to believe that an offence under Chapter IV has been committed or that such arrest or search was necessary for other purposes mentioned in the provision. So far as the first requirement is concerned, it can be seen that the Legislature intended that only certain Magistrates and certain officers of higher rank and empowered can act to effect the arrest or search. This is a safeguard provided having regard to the deterrent sentences contemplated and with a view that innocent persons are not harassed. Therefore if an arrest or search contemplated under these provisions of NDPS Act has to be carried out, the same can be done only by competent and empowered Magistrates or officers mentioned thereunder.” Furthermore, their Lordships in paragraph 14 have held that whether there was such reason to believe and whether the officer empowered acted in a bona fide manner, depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and will have a bearing in appreciation of the evidence. 18. Even in Baldev Singh’s case (supra) , their Lordships of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court with regard to Section 42 (1)of the NDPS Act have held in paragraphs 9 & 10 as under: - “9. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 lays down that the empowered officer, if has a prior information given by any person, he should necessarily take it down in writing and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search, without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief. 10. he may carry out the arrest or search, without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief. 10. The proviso to sub-section (1) lays down that if the empowered officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place, at any time between sunset and sunrise, after recording the grounds of his belief. Vide sub-section (2) of Section 42 , the empowered officer who takes down information in writing or records the grounds of his belief under the proviso to sub- section (1), shall forthwith send a copy of the same to his immediate official superior. Section 43 deals with the power of seizure and arrest of the suspect in a public place. The material difference between the provisions of Section 43 and Section 42 is that whereas Section 42 requires recording of reasons for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the commission of an offence before conducting search and seizure, Section 43 does not contain any such provision and as such while acting under Section 43 of the Act, the empowered officer has the power of seizure of the article etc. and arrest of a person who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful.” 19. Reverting to the facts of the case, in the instant case, it is undisputed that the investigation of the instant case was done by Sushil Sharma, who was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Police Station, Komakhan on the date of incident, who is entitled to proceed in the matters falls under the NDPS Act. 20. It is case of the appellants that the Investigating Officer had not complied with the Standing Order 1/89 and not taken sample from each packet. Total 34 packet of ganja was seized from the vehicle and only two samples were taken out from the contraband after mixing them, which is not permissible as per law. 20. It is case of the appellants that the Investigating Officer had not complied with the Standing Order 1/89 and not taken sample from each packet. Total 34 packet of ganja was seized from the vehicle and only two samples were taken out from the contraband after mixing them, which is not permissible as per law. The sample of contraband was not immediately sent to FSL for chemical examination and it was sent to FSL on 24.08.2020 and delay in sending is not explained by the Investigating Officer. 21. Though no procedure is prescribed either in the N.D.P.S. Act or in the N.D.P.S. 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.” 22. From a perusal 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 a perusal 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 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 23. 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. 24. Hence, the Investigating Officer was under an obligation to collect separate samples from each of the gunny bags so that the analysis of the contents of each of the gunny bag could be performed individually. As the seizure officer before drawing the samples, proceeded to mix the contents of the gunny bags without subjecting them to the test by the U.N. Kit, the accused has a right to contend that one of the gunny bags might not have contained contraband ganja. If at all the prosecution desired to prove that all the gunny bags contained ganja, then it was essential for the samples to have been collected and analysed individually from all the gunny bags or else, the test by U.N. Kit should have been carried out on the material present in all the bags. 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.” 25. Reverting to the instant case, the evidence of Investigating Officer Sushil Sharma, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-12) is most important. Reverting to the instant case, the evidence of Investigating Officer Sushil Sharma, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-12) is most important. In para 11, he has specifically stated that at the spot itself, in the presence of witnesses, 34 packets containing the intoxicant ganja recovered from the joint possession of the accused were opened, after spreading palpatris, all of them were mixed together and reconciled and Samras Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P14 which contain his signature and signatures of the accused and on weighing 34 packets of ganja, it was found that in 33 packets, it contain 03-03 kg each and 01 packet contains 01 kg and thus total 100 kg was found to be intoxicant and thereafter, weighing panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-13, which also contain his signature and signatures of the accused. In para 12, he further stated that out of 100 kg of intoxicant, he had prepared samples of 100-100 grams of ganja in two plastic boxes and marked them with Article A-01 and A-02 and remaining ganja of 99.800 kg was filled in a bag and prepared Sample Panchnama vide Ex.P-15, which also contain his signature and signatures of the accused. In para 38 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that the weigher had weighed the packets along with the packets, on which the weight of each packet was stated to be 03 kg each in 33 packets and 01 kg in 01 packet, total weight being 100 g. He also admitted that he did not get the 34 empty packets weighed and he cannot give any reason as to why he did not get the empty packets weighed. 26. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has conducted the investigation, it is quite vivid that he had first mixed all the contraband articles in palpatri and thereafter taken only two samples 100-100 grams each and as such, he failed the compliance of Standing Order 1/89. 27. 26. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has conducted the investigation, it is quite vivid that he had first mixed all the contraband articles in palpatri and thereafter taken only two samples 100-100 grams each and as such, he failed the compliance of Standing Order 1/89. 27. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record and also considering the evidence of Investigating Officer Sushil Sharma (PW-12) and also considering the fact that instructions given in Standing Order No. 1/89 issued by the Central Government has not been followed in the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has also committed grave legal error in convicting and sentencing the appellants for offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. As such, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. 28. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.565/2023 filed on behalf of appellant- Rajkumar Sharma and Criminal Appeal No.1196/2023 filed on behalf of appellant- Madan Mohan Sharma are allowed and the impugned judgment dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (NDPS Act) No. H-16/2020 is set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. They are in jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 29. The appellants are directed to file personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 30. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 31. Before parting with the judgment, we wish to observe that the investigation which has been done in the instant case shows the lethargic approach of the investigating agency as it has been found that huge quantity of contraband article was seized in the present case and because of laxity on the part of the investigating agency, the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act have not been followed.With the heavy heart, we have to allow these appeals 32. Considering the aforesaid fact, we direct the Director General of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and other investigating agencies to issue advisories that in any such cases, if the prosecution is launched, the investigating agency should strictly follow the mandatory provisions under the relevant Act so that the accused may not take the benefit of such lapses as the offence like the present one which is the offence against the society which weakens the basic structure of the society. Such offence has to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law with heavy hand in order to protect the future of this country. 33. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Director General of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh forthwith for necessary information and further compliance.