Dharnidhar Jha, J.- The solitary appellant Girish Prasad was put on trial by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gopalganj, after being charged of the offences punishable under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act( ‘the Act’ for short) in Trial No.1 of 2004/Trial No. 82 of 2009 arising out of Govt. official Complaint No.7 of 1995. By the judgment dated 14.12.2009, he was held guilty of committing both the offences and after being heard on 16.12.2009 under Section 235 Cr.P.C. the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years as also to pay a fine of rupees one lac, else, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year under section 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act. No sentence was passed under Section 22 of the Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the complainant, who was the Inspector of Customs, received a confidential information on 4.5.1995 that someone was carrying Nepali Charas from Nepal into India and will go to Uttar Pradesh by a bus. A preventive party comprising of Superintendent of Customs, Shri P.K. Ghosh, P.W.4 and others was formed and it started checking the vehicles. At about 6 P.M. a bus was seen coming from Muzaffarpur which was going to Siwan and that was also checked. A man who was sitting in a seat was suspected to be the person carrying narcotic drugs and, as such, his luggage was searched and, ultimately, 1.5 K.Gs. of Charas was recovered. A panchnama was prepared before the two witnesses and the statement of the appellant was also recorded in presence of the witnesses in which he confessed to his guilt and revealed that a case was also pending against him in Delhi.

3. Samples of the recovered article were drawn in triplicate and the same were packed and sealed in three small packets and the same were sent for chemical examination. The arrested accused, i.e., the appellant, was forwarded to court and a complaint petition was filed.

4. As may appear from Ext.8, which is the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Chemical Laboratory, Customs House, Calcutta, the sampled articles which was the greenish brown mass was responding to the trace of resinous extract from plant cannabis sativa(charas). This is how the above noted complaint petition went on to trial which, ultimately, ended in the impugned judgment.

5. Shri Shakeel Ahmad Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant took me through the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that it could not be ascertained as to where the search of the bag of the appellant was made and charas was recovered from it. It was further contended that witnesses were contradicting each other not only on the place of search and seizure but were also making variant statements as regards the possession of the bag by the appellant. It was further contended that some of the mandatory provisions along with the obligatory ones were not complied with while conducting search or seizure or other aspect of the enquiry or investigation, specially of storage, preparation of inventory, drawl of samples and destruction of the recovered articles which go to the very root of the prosecution story and creates a serious doubt about the manner in which the enquiry was carried out and this makes the whole prosecution charge suspect. It was, as such, contended that on these very scores, the Court must acquit the appellant.

6. While arguing, the learned Senior counsel was referring to Sections 52,52A,53 and 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act besides referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2001 SC 1002 in which it was held that the provision might be obligatory and may not be necessary to be complied with, but when it comes to appreciation of evidence in the light of the provisions particularly of obligatory nature, then the Court has to consider the effect thereof on the whole investigation or enquiry.

7. Learned counsel appearing on beha