As per case facts, appellants Veer Singh and Mukesh Prasad Vishwakarma were convicted for possessing a large quantity of ganja found in a truck. They appealed, claiming false implication, lack ... of knowledge of the contraband, and significant procedural lapses during the investigation and sampling. Specifically, they alleged violations of Sections 50, 52-A, and 57 of the NDPS Act, including a joint consent panchnama, undated documents, and improper sampling procedures. The central question before the court was whether the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially given the alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding search procedures and the handling and sampling of seized narcotics. Finally, the High Court found that there was substantial non-compliance with the procedures prescribed under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and its corresponding Rules. It noted that samples were not taken in the presence of a Magistrate at the time of seizure, the entire quantity of seized ganja was not produced in court, and primary evidence like photographs of the disposal was not exhibited. Furthermore, the court found serious flaws in the sampling process, including taking samples from only one sack while illegally presuming other sacks contained the same substance, and the use of undated panchnamas and disposal charts. Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents emphasizing strict adherence to procedural safeguards in NDPS cases, the court concluded that the entire procedure adopted by the police and Magistrate was faulty and doubtful, thus rendering the conviction unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction judgment was set aside.