JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.07.2013, passed by learned Special Judge (I), Una, District Una, H.P. in Sessions Case No.13 of 2012. 2. All the respondents herein were tried for commission of offence under Section 15 of Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”). 3. The respondents were charged with allegation that during the intervening night of 1st and 2nd May, 2012, Poppy straw/husk weighing 135 Kgs was recovered from their conscious and exclusive possession, at place Kuthar Beet within the jurisdiction of Police Station Haroli, District Una, while the said contraband was being transported in truck bearing registration No. PB-30C-3237. 4. The specific allegations against the respondents were that respondent No.2 Satnam Singh (R-2) son of Mohinder Singh was the driver of the truck and respondent No.3 Gurdeep Singh (R-3) was its conductor. As regards respondent No.1 Satnam Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh (R-1), it was alleged that the said respondent was also an occupier of the truck and had fled into darkness, at the site of police, after jumping from the truck. 5. The case as set up by the prosecution was that during the intervening night of 1st and 2nd May, 2012, the police officials of Police Station Haroli were on night patrol duty in their vehicle HP-20C-0507. At about 3:00 AM, truck bearing No. PB-30C-3237 was sighted by the police party at place known as Kuthar Beat. PSI Raman Kumar (PW-1) signaled the truck to stop. The moment the truck was stopped, a person jumped out and fled into darkness, who was identified as Satnam Singh @ Satta (R-1). Though, he was chased by HC Vipin Kumar and HC Balbir Singh, but in vain. The driver and conductor of the truck were on the spot. A search of the truck was conducted in their presence and six sacks were found loaded in the tool box of the truck. The sacks were brought down and were checked. SHO (PW-25) tasted the contents of each of the sack and found it to be poppy husk. 6. On weighment, the entire bulk of the contraband was found 135 Kgs. The representative samples weighing 1 Kg each from each of the sack were drawn. The sacks were brought down and were checked. SHO (PW-25) tasted the contents of each of the sack and found it to be poppy husk. 6. On weighment, the entire bulk of the contraband was found 135 Kgs. The representative samples weighing 1 Kg each from each of the sack were drawn. Sacks were marked as S-1 to S-6, whereas the envelopes containing samples were marked as T-1 to T-6. The sacks containing the bulk as also the sample parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘K’. Each of the sack containing bulk was sealed with one seal each, whereas the samples were sealed with three seals each. The specimen of the seal was preserved on the piece of cloth and on NCB-1 form. The seal was handed over to PW-1 PSI Raman Kumar after use. The plastic sacks, sample parcels, truck along with its documents were taken in possession. The recovery and seizure memos were prepared. 7. Rukka was sent to Police Station through HC Sushil Kumar (PW-12), on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-6/A was registered at Police Station Haroli. The site plan was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. R-2 and R-3 were formally arrested and information regarding their arrest was given to their relatives. 8. Thereafter, police party returned to the Police Station. The entire case property was handed over by the SHO (PW-25) to ASI Prem Lal, who conducted the resealing procedure and applied the seals with seal impression ‘R’ on the sacks containing bulk and parcels containing samples. The relevant columns of NCB-1 form were filled. The case property was handed over to MHC of the Police Station. 9. The special report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent to Superintendent of Police, Una. 10. It was further the case of the prosecution that the driver of the truck (R-2) had disclosed that the truck was handed over to him by Jagga. The police had come to know that actual name of Jagga was Ravi Kumar son of Bakhshinder Singh, resident of village Daulatpur, District Kapurthala, Punjab. The said Jagga had instructed the driver and conductor of the apprehended truck to deliver the same to person whose mobile number was given to them and the said person was Satnam Singh, son of Kartar Singh (R-1). The said Jagga had instructed the driver and conductor of the apprehended truck to deliver the same to person whose mobile number was given to them and the said person was Satnam Singh, son of Kartar Singh (R-1). According to the prosecution, R- 1 Satnam Singh son of Kartar Singh had remained in touch with Ravi Kumar @ Jagga on his mobile phone. The truck had entered the State of Himachal Pradesh by paying Rs.400/- as Himachal Pradesh Entry Tax at S.K. & Co. barrier. 11. It was also alleged that R-1 Satnam Singh had got himself admitted in CMC, Ludhiana under a fake name, from where he was apprehended and arrested on 13.05.2012. 12. The sample parcels were sent to SFSL, Junga and as per report from the said laboratory, the samples were found to be that of poppy husk. 13. To prove its case, prosecution examined 26 witnesses. PW-1 PSI Raman Chaudhary, PW-12 HC Sushil Kumar, PW-13 HC Balbir Singh and PW-25 SI Harjit Singh were examined as spot witnesses. 13.1 PW-2 Constable Manjit Singh and PW-3 Constable Ram Lal were examined to prove the transit of samples from Police Station to SFSL, Junga and back. PW-4 Dr. Kapil Sharma proved the report Ext. PW-4/A prepared at SFSL, Junga on analysis of samples. 13.2 PW-5 HHC Vijay Singh proved the receipt of grounds of belief recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 42 of NDPS Act and also the special report under Section 57 of the said Act in the office of Superintendent of Police, Una on 02.05.2012 Ext. PW-5/A and Ext. PW-5/B respectively. 13.3 PW-6 ASI Kuldeep Singh was examined to prove the registration of FIR Ext. PW-6/A on the basis of Rukka. He was also examined to prove the handing over of case property by SI SHO Harjit Singh for resealing purpose and the further process and resealing undertaken by him. 13.4 PW-7, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-16 were examined to prove the call details of certain mobile phones to connect the respondents with the alleged crime. 13.5 PW-8, PW-9 and PW-19 were examined to prove the computerized record relating to the case. 13.6 PW-14 HC Shakti Nandan was examined to prove the receipt and safe custody of the case property in the Malkhana of Police Station Haroli being the MHC at the relevant time. 13.5 PW-8, PW-9 and PW-19 were examined to prove the computerized record relating to the case. 13.6 PW-14 HC Shakti Nandan was examined to prove the receipt and safe custody of the case property in the Malkhana of Police Station Haroli being the MHC at the relevant time. 13.7 PW-15 was examined to prove the receipt of payment of toll tax in respect of vehicle No.3237. PW-17 HHC Ashwani Kumar, PW-18 HC Sushil Kumar, PW-24 Shri Abhey Mandyal, JMIC, Court No.1, Una and PW-26 SHO, Mohinder Kumar were examined to prove the proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. PW-20 HHC Rajinder Kumar and PW-21 Constable Yogesh Kumar were examined to prove the transit of samples drawn during the proceedings under Section 52-A of NDPS Act to SFSL, Junga and back. 13.8 PW-22 SI Varun Patial and PW-23 Dr. Emmanuel were examined to prove the fact that Satnam Singh, son of Shri Kartar Singh remained admitted in CMC, Ludhiana under a fake name. 14. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Special Judge has acquitted all the respondents vide impugned judgment. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully. 16. Learned Special Judge did not find the charges proved against respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. Contradictions and embellishments in the statements of spot witnesses have been noticed. It has been found that PW-1 PSI Raman Chaudhary had not named the other police officials who had conducted the search inside the truck; PW-12 Sushil Kumar had stated that PW-1 Raman Chaudhary and Constable Manjit had checked the truck, whereas PW-13 HC Balbir Singh had stated that PSI Raman Chaudhary, Constable Manjit and HC Sushil Kumar had checked the truck. Thus, the version of all the three police officials had been found to be different. 17. Learned Special Judge has also doubted the prosecution case on the ground that no independent witness had been associated. It was noticed that though, the weighing scale had been procured from an independent person, but even such person had not been associated in the investigation of the case. No corroboration was found to the story propounded by the police with respect to involvement of Ravi Kumar @ Jagga. The version of the prosecution with respect to implication of R-1 Satnam Singh son of Kartar Singh was also found doubtful. 18. No corroboration was found to the story propounded by the police with respect to involvement of Ravi Kumar @ Jagga. The version of the prosecution with respect to implication of R-1 Satnam Singh son of Kartar Singh was also found doubtful. 18. It is more than settled that the powers of Appellate Court while hearing the appeals against the acquittal are not unbridled. There is a clear caveat that in case the view arrived at by the trial Court is a possible one borne from the material on record, the same cannot be viewed differently, even if, there is a possibility of any other view. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440 , wherein it has been held as under: “Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal: 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 19. Keeping in view the above noted exposition, the view formed by learned Special Judge needs no interference as we have found the same to be a possible view in the facts established on record. 20. The contradictions in the statements of spot witnesses noted by learned Special Judge are clearly borne from the record. They gain importance; as it is hard to believe that the police witnesses would forget the exact sequence in which the recovery of contraband, as alleged, had taken place more particularly when it related to the actual participation of officials in the recovery proceedings. 21. They gain importance; as it is hard to believe that the police witnesses would forget the exact sequence in which the recovery of contraband, as alleged, had taken place more particularly when it related to the actual participation of officials in the recovery proceedings. 21. Though, as per prosecution, it was a case of chance recovery, but keeping in view the fact that the alleged recovery was made in the month of May i.e. summer season, availability of independent witness could not be easily ruled out. In fact, there is nothing on record to suggest that any effort was made by the Investigating Officer to associate such witness to add credence to the police version. As per the case of the prosecution, the weighing scale was brought by HC Vipin Kumar from a distance of more than 10 Kms and had returned to the spot after about one hour. The entire process of search and seizure had taken more than three hours and thus, it cannot be believed that during such a long period no independent person could be associated by the Investigating Officer. Noticeably, neither HC Vipin Kumar, nor the owner of weighing scale have been examined as prosecution witnesses. 22. The presence of R-1 Satnam Singh in the truck has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The police witnesses had stated that they knew Satnam Singh, son of Kartar Singh as he had been apprehended in another case, however, it was admitted by PW-25 in cross-examination that during February/March 2012 he had visited the house of Satnam Singh @ Satta as case had been registered against his son Gurdeep Singh. He feigned ignorance that the wife of Satnam Singh @ Satta had made a complaint to DGP and Secretary (Home) against the police officials. He also feigned ignorance that the Dy.SP Headquarter Shri Manoj Tiwari had held the inquiry into such complaint. It was not the case of prosecution that R-1 was known to the police officials because of search conducted in his house, therefore, there are reasons to doubt the prosecution version. 23. We are also not oblivious to the legal prescription about the strict examination required on prosecution case, keeping in view the severity of the punishment for offences under the Act. 23. We are also not oblivious to the legal prescription about the strict examination required on prosecution case, keeping in view the severity of the punishment for offences under the Act. In Hanif Khan alias Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2020) 16 SCC 709, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “9. Because there is a reverse burden of proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions. If at any stage, the accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his guilt, the benefit will naturally have to go to him.” 24. Another noticeable fact from the case of prosecution is that homogeneous samples were allegedly drawn on the spot, however, the procedure, if any, adopted for making the bulk homogeneous has not been explicitly explained. 25. NDPS Act was amended in the year 1989 and Section 52A was incorporated, which read as under: “52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of — (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of 5 [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.” 26. Evidently, the aforesaid provision was incorporated for safe custody and disposal of narcotic and psychotropic substances, so as to avoid their misuse. In the case in hand, the Investigating Officer had not chosen to comply with Section 52A of the Act in the first instance, rather he had chosen to draw the samples on spot. 27. The Central Government in exercise of powers vested under sub-section (i) of Section 52 (A) of the Act, has issued standing order No.1 of 1989, prescribing the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. This standing order succeeds the provision of standing order No. 1 of 1988. 27. The Central Government in exercise of powers vested under sub-section (i) of Section 52 (A) of the Act, has issued standing order No.1 of 1989, prescribing the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. This standing order succeeds the provision of standing order No. 1 of 1988. Section 2 of the standing order No.1 of 1989 provides for general procedure of sampling and storage etc. as under: - STANDING ORDER No. 1/89 SECTION II - GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING, STORAGE, ETC. 2.1. All drugs 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. 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 (i n duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (i n 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 be 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 be sealed and marked "Secret - Drug sample/Test memo", to be sent to the chemical laboratory concerned. 3. The seizing officers of the Central Government Departments, viz., Customs, Central Excise, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Narcotic s Control Bureau, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, etc. should despatch samples of the seized drugs to one of the laboratories of the Central Revenues Control Laboratory nearest to their offices depending upon the availability of test facilities . The other central agencies like BSF, CBI and other central police organizations may send such samples to the Director, Central Forensic Laboratory, New Delhi. All State enforcement agencies may send samples of seized drugs to the Director/Deputy Director/ Assistant Director of their respective State Forensic Science Laboratory. 3.1. After sampling, a detailed inventory of such packages/containers shall be prepared for enclosure with the Panchama. Original wrappers shall also be preserved for evidentiary purposes. 28. All State enforcement agencies may send samples of seized drugs to the Director/Deputy Director/ Assistant Director of their respective State Forensic Science Laboratory. 3.1. After sampling, a detailed inventory of such packages/containers shall be prepared for enclosure with the Panchama. Original wrappers shall also be preserved for evidentiary purposes. 28. The sanctity of the Standing Order 1/89 came for consideration before the Supreme Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417 , wherein it was held as under:- “89. Guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied, but also in a case involving penal proceedings, vis-a-vis a departmental proceeding, rigours of such guidelines may be insisted upon. Another important factor which must be borne in mind is as to whether such directions have been issued in terms of the provisions of the statute or not. When directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefor, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith. 90. Recently, this Court in State of Kerala & Ors. v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. & Anr. [ (2008) 3 SCC 582 ], following the earlier decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [ (2004) 10 SCC 1 ] held that statutory instructions are mandatory in nature. “91. Logical corollary of these discussions is that the guidelines such as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon for so that sanctity of physical evidence in such cases remains intact. Clearly, there has been no substantial compliance of these guidelines by the investigating authority which leads to drawing of an adverse inference against them to the effect that had such evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the prosecution.” 29. If one goes through the Standing Order 1/89 and Section 52A (2) (c) of the NDPS Act, an apparent conflict arises as the former provides for sampling at the spot of seizure and sending the same to laboratory within 72 hours whereas the latter provides for sampling before a Magistrate. The said conflict has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately in Union of India (UOI) v. Mohanlal and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 379 . The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: “Seizure and sampling 12. The said conflict has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately in Union of India (UOI) v. Mohanlal and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 379 . The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court are reproduced hereunder: “Seizure and sampling 12. Section 52-A(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 empowers the Central Government to prescribe by a notification the procedure to be followed for seizure, storage and disposal of drugs and psychotropic substances. The Central Government has in exercise of that power issued Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 which prescribes the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. Two subsequent standing orders one dated 10-5-2007 and the other dated 16-1-2015 deal with disposal and destruction of seized contraband and do not alter or add to the earlier standing order that prescribes the procedure for conducting seizures. Para 2.2 of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 states that samples must be taken from the seized contraband on the spot at the time of recovery itself. It reads: “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 panchnama drawn on the spot.” 13. Most of the States, however, claim that no samples are drawn at the time of seizure. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is by far the only agency which claims that samples are drawn at the time of seizure, while Narcotics Control Bureau asserts that it does not do so. There is thus no uniform practice or procedure being followed by the states or the central agencies in the matter of drawing sample. This is, therefore, an area that needs to be suitably addressed in the light of statutory provisions which ought to be strictly observed given the seriousness of the offences under the Act and the punishment prescribed by law in case the same are proved. We propose to deal with the issue no matter briefly in an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regards drawing of sample. 14. Section 52-A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances. We propose to deal with the issue no matter briefly in an attempt to remove the confusion that prevails regards drawing of sample. 14. Section 52-A as amended by Act 16 of 2014, deals with disposal of seized drugs and psychotropic substances. It reads: “52-A.Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.—(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has been seized and forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of— (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) When an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (3) When an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.” 15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)(c) (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. 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 sub-sections (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. 18. Be that as it may, a conflict between the statutory provision governing taking of samples and the Standing Order issued by the Central Government is evident when the two are placed in juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. There is no gainsaid that such a conflict shall have to be resolved in favour of the statute on first principles of interpretation but the continuance of the statutory notification in its present form is bound to create confusion in the minds of the authorities concerned instead of helping them in the discharge of their duties. The Central Government, therefore, will do well to re-examine the matter and take suitable steps in above direction.” 30. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence that any of these procedures were followed while drawing samples. There is not even any semblance of any procedure having been adopted for drawing a representative sample. This creates a serious doubt on the prosecution case. 31. Strangely, in the facts of the case at hand, the proceedings under Section 52 A of the NDPS Act were also conducted on 03.01.2013. PW-24 Shri Abhey Mandyal Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has stated that the application for conducting proceedings under Section 52 A of the NDPS Act was filed on 12.10.2012. It has remained unexplained that why such a long period was taken to conduct the proceedings. Even the proceedings so conducted are not beyond suspicion. No memo has been prepared to record the proceedings allegedly held under Section 52 A of the NDPS Act. A copy of order passed by PW-24 on 03.01.2013 has been placed on record as Ext. PW- 24/C. The said document only records the averments made in the application moved by the police and nothing more. Even the certificate Ext. PW-24/D allegedly issued by PW-24 appears to be a bare formality as even the blanks have not been filled in the document. 32. Noticeably, the statement of first prosecution witness was recorded on 07.01.2013, meaning thereby that the alleged proceedings under section 52A of the NDPS Act were conducted just four days before. 33. Thus, further doubt is created by the conduct of the investigating agency. It has not been shown that the bulk was destroyed after the conduct of alleged proceedings under Section 52 A of the Act. That being so, the purpose of belated conduct of such proceedings, more particularly, when the samples allegedly drawn at the spot had already been got examined at SFSL Junga is beyond comprehension. It has not been shown that the bulk was destroyed after the conduct of alleged proceedings under Section 52 A of the Act. That being so, the purpose of belated conduct of such proceedings, more particularly, when the samples allegedly drawn at the spot had already been got examined at SFSL Junga is beyond comprehension. Since the entire proceedings held under Section 52A is highly doubtful, the trial conducted thereafter on the basis of bulk preserved has to be viewed with suspicion. 34. Another fact which deserves notice is that as per the prosecution case, the six number of bags containing alleged contraband were found in the tool box of the truck and five of them were in white colour, whereas the sixth was in yellow colour. Firstly, the description of tool box has not been explained. None of the alleged recovery witnesses had pin pointed the exact location inside the truck from where the bags were recovered. Secondly, PW-24 Mr. Abhey Mandyal, Judicial Magistrate First Class, in whose presence alleged proceedings under section 52A NDPS Act, did not identify the bags by their colour. While deposing as PW-24, said witness nowhere mentioned that the bags were in different colours. Even, PW-13, another spot witness, had not made any mention about the colour of the bags to lend corroboration to prosecution case. 35. In result, we do not find any material to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment dated 06.07.2013, passed by learned Special Judge (1), Una, District Una, H.P. is affirmed. 36. Bail Bonds furnished by respondents are discharged. 37. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 38. Record be sent back forthwith.