Vaidya, J.
1. This appeal by the appellant-convict Mohmad Jahangirkhan Pathan, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29-12-1992, rendered in Sessions Case No. 26/89 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsan, wherein he at the end of trial on coming to be convicted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Narcotic Act'), was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default, to undergo further RI for six months.
2. The prosecution case as per the evidence of R.S. Nathani (PW-2, Exh. 13), PSI, Mehsana Police Station, is to the effect that on 23-11-1987 when he along with Police Constable Hathising Khemchand (PW-1, Exh. 7) and others (not examined) and two Panch witnesses were going for the prohibition raid, he received information that one person was selling 'charas' on the public road near 'Takdir Pan House'. On this tip off, he along with the raiding party at once proceeded to the alleged place of offence where on seeing them, one person started running away. He was immediately caught hold of and on taking search of his person, six small pills of 'charas' weighing about 5 grams valued at Rs. 6/- and currency notes of Rs. 18/- were recovered from the pocket of his shirt. On interrogation, he revealed his name as Mohmad Jahangir and on demanding the pass or permit for the said muddamal, he could not produce the same. Thereafter, the said muddamal was seized and wrapped-up in a packet and was sealed in the presence of two Panchas and the Panchnama Exh. 15 was drawn accordingly. Thereafter, appellant came to be arrested and a complaint Exh. 14 was filed against him for the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Act before PSI-Mehsana (name not legible). Subsequently on receipt of the Public Analyst report (Exh. 17) to the effect that the muddamal was 'charas' the appellant came to be charge-sheeted for the aforesaid alleged offence to stand trial before the Sessions Court at Mehsana.
3. At trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial court after only appreciating the prosecution evidence brought on the record, even though Panchas did not support the prosecution, accepting the evidence of PSI-Nathani, and Police Constable Hathisinh convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above in para-1 of this judgment, giving rise to the present appeal.
4. Heard Ms. D.R. Kachhavah and Mr. K.V. Shelat, the leanred advocates appearing for the respective sides.
5. It is indeed quite true as observed by the learned Judge that merely because the Panchas do not support the prosecution case, that by itself is hardly a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the police witnesses, if they are otherwise found dependable. In fact, there cannot be two opinions on this aspect. But at the same time, in order to record the order of conviction and sentence on the basis of the evidence of police officers only, their evidence should be of the sterling quality, clear enough and beyond any measure of doubt to connect the accused with the crime alleged against him. In such case, under the Narcotic Act, in order to connect the accused with the crime alleged against him, the prosecution is required to prove beyond any measure of doubt the identity of the muddamal sample, that is to say the sample seized from the accused at the time of his search by the police officer and which ultimately came to be identified, analysed and found to be the Narcotic drug by the Public Analyst is one and the same only and none other. If the said identity of the muddamal sample falls short-of to be established, the benefit of the same has got to be invariably resolved in favour of the accused. In the instant case, PSI Nathani though he has not stated before the Court that he has affixed a seal of his Police Station, however, since the muddamal was sealed under the Panchnama, one may not attach much importance to the same, as the said particulars are ultimately brought on the record and gets duly supported by the Panchnama. Further, in the instant case, the matter does not simply res there. On perusal of the Public Analyst report (Exh. 17), there is indeed nothing in it on the basis of which it can be said with certainty and beyond any manner of doubt that the muddamal sample came to be analysed by the Public Analyst was the very same received from the Investigating Agency. The report is totally vague so far as the fixing of the identity of the muddamal sample is concerned. In the report, what is stated is that one sealed paper packet was received. It does not say as to what seal was affixed thereupon. Not only that but whenever the sample is analysed, the seal of the sample is required to be broken open and in the process two slips containing signatures of the panchas and PSI in whose presence the muddamal came to be seized are taken out to be noted in the report. These two slips containing signature of Panchas and the concerned police officer are also not noted in the Public Analyst report at Exh. 17. Under the circumstances, though it is quite true that the Public Analyst report (Exh. 17) does contain an opinion that the muddamal was found to be 'Charas', still however, there is indeed nothing on the basis of which the sample analysed could be connected with the sample seized and sealed from accused. This vital gap in the evidence of Public Analyst, that of PSI Nathani and the accused, totally remains unbridged and when that is the position available, it is not permitted to any court to record conviction of the accused. In this view of the matter, since the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the crime alleged against him, we have no alternative left with us but to acquit the accused. We do not know whether the sample was in fact sealed with the seal of Mehsana City Police Station or not. It may or may not be. In case, if the sample was sealed as asserted by PSI-Nathani, then the Public Analyst would not have failed to notice the facsimile mark of Mehsana Police Station and the two slips containing signature of Panchas and PSI. The very fact that this is not reflected in the notes made in the report Exh. 17 is indeed a serious lapse either on the part of PSI-Nathani or on the part of Public Analyst. In this view of the matter, since the most material link connecting accused with the crime alleged against him viz., the identity of muddamal sample not duly established, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused, and as a result the appellant deserves to be acquitted.
6. While parting, we cannot help expressing our surprise to the fact that why in such serious offences under the Narcotic Act are not investigated to its logical extent. The Narcotic drugs which stands as a global challenge has taken quite a heavy toll of the Society and that is the reason why the Parliament has to come out with a special Act providing for quite stringent sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac, etc. etc., extending the sentence up to 20 years and in a gross-case up to death even under Section 31-A of the said Act. In this view of the matter, it is equally the duty of Investigating Agency not to cry halt by merely catching hold of one accused person allegedly found in possession of 5 or 6 grams of narcotic drugs and not to investigate the case further to book other associated offenders. Any narcotic drug or psychotrophic substance before it flows into the Society and reaches at the hands of consumers, it has to travel through various stations and has to pass through many hands in-between. It is but obvious that someone must have cultivated, produced or manufactured the same and, therefore, someone must have transported it through vehicles, stored it at some place, and someone sold it and ultimately purchased by someone -- meaning thereby all these persons through whom the narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances pass through in one capacity or the other are also liable to be tried and convicted for the same by the Courts of Law for their respective participation in the crime. Accordingly, whenever the investigating agency happens to come across any particular person either found producing/manufacturing or purchasing or in any other manner involved in connection with the same, it must know that the person from whom the narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances has been recovered is not the only person associated alone with the crime, as around him there are others also interconnected with him. Now despite this telling facts which are indeed the matter of common knowledge and common experience, what we find is that after catching hold of a person concerned in possession of narcotic drugs, no other persons linked and associated with him, and involved in the said crime; to the best of our knowledge have so far been booked by the police. We know that the narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances are not the sky produce, falling as rain and landing striaghtway in the hands or at the place of someone. It is an earthy product and passes through hand-to-hand of various persons at different places, and accordingly, police must know the persons from whose possession the narcotic drug and/or psychotrophic substance is found is the only one of the link and there are other linkers round about him. Despite these common placed facts and common sense, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency in many cases no serious efforts appears to have been made of at least has come to our knowledge to detect and unearth the crime from its grass-root. We feel that any investigating agency worth the name can never rest content by merely arresting and stopping at the particular person from whom the narcotic drugs or psychotrophic substances were found, rather it should and is bound to make further efforts to get further more information to complete the chain of other persons associated with the accused and the narcotic substance found from him. Since the narcotic offences are indeed one of the most dreaded and serious offences, it is always the duty of the Investigating Officer to ask for the remand and during the said period, it is indeed not possible to believe that out of hundred cases in all cases no particulars would be forthcoming before him on the basis of which other associated culprits can be traced and booked. Except the police taking accused on remand none else has any access to know as to what statement the arrested accused made before the police while in custody. Under such circumstances, it is the duty of immediate superior police officer to know what was the outcome of remand of the accused taken by the police and what further investigation is required to be carried out. The person arrested, as stated above, is only one of the connecting link and therefore the facts as to how he came in possession of the narcotic drugs or psychotrophic sustance(s) being strictly a matter of his personal knowledge, he was in position to reveal the truth as to from where and whom and for what prize, he purchased and/or came in possession of the narcotic drugs. Accordingly, after obtaining name, the name of particular crime-associate, the Investigating Agency has to carry further investigation of case by taking appropriate action against the person so named, so on and so forth till the source of alleged offence is reached. But these days it appears this is hardly done, otherwise, the truth was bound to come out, as the police is always capable and potential enough to unearth any crime; if it sincerely so resolves. Be the case it may, in our opinion there appears to be five prima facie reasons for the remissness and inaction on the part of police in not going to the grass-root of the crime to unearth the same. They are: (i) either the Investigating Agency is not aware of the gravity and seriousness of the offence under the Narcotic Act and the object why the special Act like the Narcotic Act came to be enacted by the Parliament, or (ii) It has no time to carry ahead in depth investigation or (iii) It lacks intention and will to go ahead, or (iv) It is corrupt, or (v) Is amenable to extra legal influences. Now none of these grounds can ever be tolerated to defend the inaction of investigating agency when the Parliament in its all anxiety and concern for the Society has come out with a special Act like the Narcotic Act. If and only if the State is keen to meet with challenge of narcotic infiltration and aggression on the youth of the Society, it has got to concentrate fully to focus its attention on the standard copy-book investigation in cases under the Narcotic Act and to deal sternly with the investigating agency itself when it is found falling short of desired zest and zeal, keeping pace with the legislative object and intent. This can be done by impressing upon the investigating agency to locate the source and not to stop merely by arresting and prosecuting one person from whom narcotic substances were found. It is only by reaching at the source and destroying the same that the society can be saved from the evil influence of narcotic substances. One such in depth investigation reaching the source will save Police Department from booking many cases because once the source is destroyed and dried out, obviously there would be none to consume. This in turn will ultimately lessen the burden on the Police Department. This Can be done firstly by guarding the borders of States and/or Nation from where narcotic drugs and psychotrophic substances are alleged to have been smuggled in or by having a special squad in every district, town or village keeping a constant eye on the sources from where such narcotic substances are imported, stored, sold etc. The work of such a special squad should be constantly monitored by still powerful squad of higher-ups. Secondly, the Government should come out with some hand-some prizes to those persons who give information of such narcotic drugs and as a result of which, the same is ultimately seized. Thirdly, Government should also consider giving additional increments or promotion to such Investigating Officers who are found successful in detecting the source and/or booking the culprits of the narcotic offences. These are indeed the honest, sincere and public-oriented ways in which these offences can be controlled to the maximum, if not eradicated totally. Therefore, we feel that in such serious cases slip-shod investigations by occasionally catching few mosquitoes without destroying their breeding ground will hot meet with the anxiety with which the Parliament came out with special Act viz., the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985. In fact, looking to the extreme gravity and seriousness of narcotic pf-fences, every DSP, Commissioner of Police, and ultimately the Director General of Police should evince direct interest in order to see that their subordinates carry out an indepth investigation reaching to the source. In cases where such an indepth investigation is not carried out by concerned I.Os, the higher ups should at once call for the explanation from them. Furthermore, in order to have proper check on the I.A. in every narcotic cases when the I.O steps into the witness-box, in the first place it should be the duty of the concerned investigating officer to state before the court as to after arresting the person found in possession of the narcotic drugs what steps he has taken to arrest other associated accused. In case, for whatever reasons the Investigating Officer do not volunteer, then in that case, it shall be the duty of the learned PP and on his failing, the Court must put specific questions to the Investigating Officer as to what further steps he had taken to book other associates of the concerned accused. Accordingly, all the Investigating Officers, learned PPs and the learned Judges of subordinate Courts are specifically directed to scrupulously follow the aforesaid direction given by this Court, by insisting upon the concerned Investigating Officers to state what steps he has taken after arresting the accused to book other co-offenders.
7. Turning to the facts of the present case, how strange and dissatisfying it is to know that the Investigating Agency could rest content itself merely by arresting an old man, aged 65 years, found in possession of 6 small pils [weighing 5 grams] valued at Rs. 6/- only and ultimately sending him to jail to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac, without trying to locate the source from where this poor old man came into possession of said muddamal viz., 'Charas'. This is not to say that the Police has committed any error in arresting the appellant-accused. It has quite discharged its duty to the said extent, however, the point is this sort of half-hearted investigation exposes both the Law and the Law Enforcing Agencies to the comment that that either it is quite sleepish, slipary or perfunctory and/or that the 'Law governs the poors and the rich and influentials governs the Law' as the influence of master-mide and the mighty hands involved in distribution of narcotic drugs and paychotrophic substances remains undetected and all safe-distance, that too only because of the inaction of the police in the said direction. In the instant case, the very fact that the appellant was found in possession of 'Charas', the Investigating Agency ought to have inquired from him as to from where he obtained the same and from that, the police could have reached to that particular person and by making further inquiry, it could have received further clues and thereby ultimately reached the source from where the Narcotic drug was flowing in the society. As observed above, the Parliament has indeed taken due care of the public interest involved by enacting Narcotics Act. However, but for the reasons best known to the Investigating agencies, it rests content by catching hold of small flies without going deep into the matter and booking the master-minds which are the source from which the narcotic drugs are distributed in the Society. By merely cutting some leaves and branches you cannot eradicate the tree. It is only when you reach to the roots of the tree that it can be rooted out. To arrest and chargesheet the person accused of the offences under the Narcotic Act with such small quantity is quite alright and it should be done, but that is not enough. The police must proceed ahead inch-by-inch and reach its deadly source to locate the Don who is behind the entire scene. In such cases, the Investigating Officer after arresting the accused must be taking such persons on remand and out of 100 cases, at least in 30 to 40 cases, if the police has a will and desire, it can reach up to the root and book the offenders. May be, in few cases some such indepth investigation might have been carried out, but in most of the cases except cutting of few leaves and branches, no efforts are made to eradicate the poisonous tree of narcotic. Unlesss the investigating agency takes up this challenge to eradicate the narcotic offences from the society in the same spirit, zeal and zest with which the Parliament enacted the Narcotic Act, no Act howsoever special and noble object it has can deliver the desirable fruits to the Society. We hope that the Higher-ups in the administration of Law and Order situation will take note of these observations and accordingly, instruct the subordinate officers to see that they are required to treat not only the symptoms but the disease itself and that can be done only if the officers go to the root of the case. Whether this will be done or not, it is a wide question-mark left to the honesty, integrity, efficiency and sincerity of the higher-ups in the Police and Home Department. But we discharge our duty like an alarm clock sounds the alarm. It is our duty to wake-up all the concerned and despite our alarm, if they do not wake-up, well the society will have to thank its own lot.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is hereby ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence in jail is required in connection with some other case.
9. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to (i) The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, [ii] The Director General, Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, [iii] The Secretary, Home Department, and [iv] The Director General of Police, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, for information and necessary action.