Proper compliance with mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, including sealing of seized articles and the choice given for search, is crucial in determining the validity of a conviction.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal also governs the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 1260/97 filed by the appellant through jail. The aforesaid Crl. Appeals have been preferred by the appellant against judgment dated 13-10-1997 delivered by ASJ Garoth Camp at Bhanpura District Mandsaur in Special Case No. 135/96, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under S. 8-18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for 2 years.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case, before the trial Court, in nutshell, was that on 26/07/1996 at about 10. 05 a. m. ASI Ramyash Tiwari (P. W.-10) of GRP Police Station Shyamgarh, received an information through the informant that one person wearing Payjama and Shirt, carrying opium with him and is waiting for Deharadoon Express on platform No. 1 for going to Baroda. This information was written in ROJNAMCHA at Police Station. On the basis of the said information, Panchanama, Ex. P/10 was prepared. Copy of the same was immediately sent to Superior Officers and the same was received by Vijay Shukla (P. W. 1) Constable SRP Indore (SP GRP Office ). Thereafter, Police Squad went to Indore for investigation. Trap was arranged on platform No. 1 and in presence of witnesses, accused Mohanlal was caught. The accused was apprised of the information received at Police Station and he gave his search to the police. On his personal search, 250 gms opium was recovered at the instance of the accused Mohanlal and he was arrested for the offence under S. 8/18 of the Act. Out of recovered article 2 samples weighing 30 gms, each were prepared and the same were seized for sending its Chemical Analysis, Seizure memo Ex. P/12 was prepared after seizure of the article, FIR Exh. P/24 was lodged at Police Station. 2 samples of sealed packets, one passenger ticket and two samples of seal were deposited at 12-15 p. m. in Malkhana through Malkhana In-charge, Ashok Singh (PW. 2 ). Entries were made in Malkhana Register vide Exh. P/3a to this effect.

( 3 ) ON 3/08/1996, one sample of seal and one packet of sample with draft were sent to FSL Indore through Constable Omprakash (P. W.-3 ). He has deposited the same at FSL Indore and obtained the receipt Ex. P/4. The information, as per Provision under S. 57 of the Act was also sent to S. P. GRP on 27-7-1996 vide Ex. P/27 by C. L. Verma (P. W. 11) ASI.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to FSL Report Exh. P/33, seal affixed on the packet tallied with the sample of seal and on analysis, the sample was found containing opium. The appellant was prosecuted and tried for the offences punishable under S. 8/18 of the Act. On completion of trial, he was found guilty and sentenced as indicated above. This is the impugned judgment under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, has mainly canvassed about breach of compliance of Sections 50 and 55 of the Act regarding improper option given to the appellant about his search and seizure and non fixing of seal of SHO on the seized article. He has also put forth that CFSL Form was not deposited in Malkhana. Learned counsel has relied on the following decisions in favour of non-compliance of Section 55 of the Act. (1) 1996 (1) ER 227 (P and H); Lalsingh v. State of Punjab (Para 11) (ii) 1993 (2) Crimes 1130, Balaram v. State of Rajasthan (Para 7) (iii) 1997 (8) EFR 589 (P and H), Karnailsingh v. State of Punjab (Paras 6, 7) (iv) 1995 (2) Crimes 716, Makhanram v. State of Punjab (Paras 9, 10) (v) 1991 (2) EFR 593, Mohd. Shamim v. State (Para 8) (vi) 1995 (2) EFR 199 : (1995 Cri LJ 1623), Amarjitsingh v. State (Delhi HC. Paras 5, 7, and 8) learned counsel also submitted that Chemical Examiner, who has given report, Exh. P/33, has not been examined. As such this report, cannot be considered. In this regard the counsel placed reliance on the judgme