Pankaj Bhandari, J.

In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC (Supp.) 852 the Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the appeal made following observations:-

"Before, however, parting with this judgment, we would like to place emphasis on the necessity of disposal of such cases as quickly as possible. The High Courts should be well advised to device ways and means for stopping recurrence of such a case where a person undergoes entire sentence before he gets an opportunity of hearing before this Court".

2. That was a case where muddamal/physical evidence as to recovery of bulk quantity of heroin was not produced in the court. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Registry was directed to call for the details of the cases from the Advocates and to list all cases where the 'muddamal' (material object) was not produced in the Court and also the cases where the samples were not properly drawn or the seizure officer was not authorized, thirty five of such cases were listed before this Court.

3. Before going into the merits of each case, it would be appropriate to first deal with the various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor in these cases.

4. Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Aladdin & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 2016 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 521 wherein the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court placing reliance on Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal v. State of M.P. AIR 2011 SC 1335 held that during the trial of the case under NDPS Act leading primary evidence by producing and exhibiting the mudammal and the samples in the Court is essential to prove seizure. The only exception by which the prosecution can avoid this burden is by following the procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and by exhibiting the inventory, photographs and the representative samples prepared under the said provision during the trial.

5. Jitendra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003-2004 Cr.L. Reporter SC (Suppl.) 699 has also been cited before me wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of 'charas' and 'ganja' were seized from the possession of the accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. Mere oral evidence of piece and production of 'Panchnama' does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution particularly when the offence is punishable with the stringent sentence under the NDPS Act.

6. Vijay Jain v. State of M.P. (2013) 14 SCC 527 has also been cited wherein the Court has held that non production of the brown-sugar before the Court and not offering any explanation for non production of the brown sugar alleged to have been seized, the conviction cannot be sustained.

7. Union of India v. Bal Mukund & Ors. 2009 Cr. L.R. (SC) 590 has also been cited wherein the Court while dealing with the standing instructions No. 1/88 issued under the Act held that following the same was a requirement in law. Taking samples of 25 gms. each from five bags and then mixing them and sending them to laboratory was not considered in conformity with the standing instructions.

8. Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal v. State of M.P. 2011 Cr.L.R. SC 363 has also been cited wherein the Court placing reliance on Jitendra v. State of M.P. (2004) SCC 10 562 has held that production of 'muddamaal' in Court is essential and if no explanation for its non production is coming forth, the accused is entitled to acquittal.

9. Netram v. State of Rajasthan 2014 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163 has also been cited wherein separate samples were not drawn from two gunny bags. The Court held that since only one sample has been drawn at best the accused can be held guilty for possessing one gunny bag. The Court, therefore, in that case held that the contraband recovered fr