ORDER

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2008 whereby the High Court has acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them under Section 8/18(b) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, primarily for the reason that no evidence regarding the destruction of the 3.36 Kgs. of opium allegedly seized from the respondents had been provided by the prosecution. In the absence of any evidence to show that the seized contraband was destroyed as per the prevalent procedure, the contraband should have been, according to the High Court, produced before the Trial Court. The failure of the prosecution to do so, therefore, implies a failure to prove the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the respondents.

2. When this appeal came up for hearing before us on 11th April, 2012, Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, argued that the High Court was in error in holding that the procedure prescribed for destruction of the contraband had not been followed and the destruction of the seized quantity had not been proved. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon Standing Order No.1/89 and Circular dated 22nd February, 2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, impressing upon the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Union Territories as also Heads of Police of the States to comply with the instructions and the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order. We had, upon consideration of the submission made by Mr. Choudhary, passed an order on 11th April, 2012 in which we said:

“We have been taken through the contents of the Standing Order also which prescribes the procedure for search, disposal and destruction of the seized contraband. We are not, however, very sure whether the said procedure is being followed as it ought to be. The pilferage of the contraband and its return to the market place for circulation is, in our opinion, a major hazard against which the system must guard at all cost if necessary by making suitable changes wherever the same are called for. Before any exercise to that end is undertaken it is necessary to examine whether the procedure is being followed in letter and spirit. For that purpose in view we request Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae and identify if possible, by reference to the standing order and the available material, the weak links in the chain of the procedure of search, disposal or destruction of the narcotics and the remedial steps, if any, needed to plug the holes. To that extent we are inclined to enlarge the scope of this appeal for we are of the view that the hazardous nature of the substance seized in large quantities all over the country must not be let loose on the society because of human failure or failure of the system that is purported to have been put in place.”

3. Pursuant to the above we have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, who argued that the procedure prescribed for destruction of the contraband seized in different States has not been followed resulting in a very peculiar situation arising on account of such failure and accumulation of the seized drugs and narcotics in large quantities thereby increasing manifold the chances of pilferage for re-circulation in the market from the stores where such drugs are kept. In support of that submission Mr. Sinha placed reliance upon a press report published in the timesofindia.indiatimes.com dated 12th July, 2011, under the heading “Bathinda’s police stores bursting at seams with seized narcotics“. From a reading of the said report it appears that the inventory of the drugs seized by the police over the past many decades include drug seized as far as back as in the early eighties. Large quantities of seiz