The Appellant is accused in Special Criminal Case No. 22 of 1997 for offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) A of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. Police Inspector Mr. Pawade ordered to raid the house of the accused on getting secret information on 29th May, 1997.

3. Police Sub-Inspector Tighare conducted the raid in presence of Police Inspector Mr. Pawade, Panch witnesses and Lady Police Constable Buckle No. 4222. Sushila.

4. In the search of the house, twenty five paper sachets of Ganja were found kept in a polythene bag [milk bag].

5. On weightment, Ganja was found to be 8~ grams. Samples were drawn for forwarding for analysis, and different packings were done. The Panchanama of raid was completed. Crime No.96 of 1997 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act was registered.

6. According to prosecution, compliances of all statutory requirements, such as Section 42 (1) and (2), Sections 50 and 57 are duly made.

7. In the trial, two Panch witnesses have turned hostile. Based on police witnesses, Trial Court held that the charge was proved and ordered conviction and sentence.

8. This appeal is admitted and sentence has been suspended.

9. Various grounds are raised in the Memo of Appeal to challenge the conviction.

Appeal is, however, pressed only on one ground as to failure of prosecution to produce seized Muddemal narcotic drug before Court. It is a common ground that only part of total of 85 gms of Ganja, which was seized, was produced, while remaining seized Muddemal was not produced. It is urged that this incomplete production is not a due compliance as to need of proof of fact of seizure, and that in view 'of settled law, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10. In order to substantiate only point which is argued, reliance is placed on reported judgments in the cases of, namely:- ,

[1] Jitendra & another Vs. State of M.P. [(2004) 10 SCC 562],

[2] Vinod @ Vinya @ Bhokanya son of Patiram Gaidhane & anr. Vs. State of Mah. [2006 ALL MR (Cri.) 53],

[3] Hanamantu Gangaram Badawat Vs.

State of Mah. [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3359],

[4] Mohan son of Ganesh Kristaiyya & anr. Vs. State of Mah. [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 367], and

[5] Manojkumar @ Ashok Chhidilal Dike & another Vs. State of Mah. [Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2007, decided on 11th July, 2008 (since reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2405) (Coram: A. H. Joshi, J.].

11. Learned Advocate for the appellant urges that in view of these judgments, very little work is left for this Court to do, and has simply to write an order of acquittal.

12. Judgment of Hon'bJe Supreme Court at Serial No.1 above [Jitendra & another Vs. State of M.P.] [supra] is a binding precedent not on me alone, but other Hon'ble Judges of this Court have followed this Judgment, as is seen from other judgments quoted in foregoing para no.9.

13. This Court had come across rather was confronted with a similar situation while deciding appeal at Item/Sf. No.5 above.

In the said Judgment, this Court has recorded its serious concern and dissatisfaction towards apathy, negligence and recklessness of prosecution in handling the cases of present nature, observed and directed as follows:"

15. This Court notes with extreme regrets that it is seen that there are large number of cases where Section 52 is not followed, and in addition, the contraband material, subject-matter of offence, is not produced before the Special Judge, rendering the result of acquittal as arithmetic equation.

16.It is hard to believe that the police machinery and the prosecution, on the whole, is not conversant with this mandatory nature of provisions and settled precedents. It is also difficult to believe that the orders of such acquittal either passed by Trial Court or higher Courts do not come to the notice of the prosecution. The question then arises is as to why the recurrence occurs - whether it is deliberate, and if yes, why is it not controlled by superiors?

17. This Court, therefore, considers it necessary to direct the State Govt., through the Principa