JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 23-8-1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur disposing of Criminal appeal No. 116 of 1984 (Kailash vs. State) and Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1984 (Uda vs. State) whereby the petitioners convictions under section 9 (a) of the Opium Act, 1878 (for short the act) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month have been maintained. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 6-4-1984 at about 11. 45 p. m. 4 kgs. of opium were recovered from the possession of the petitioners who were then near bisanya Dak Bungalow. Seizure was effected in the presence of Khursheed Ali (P. W. 2) and Shafi Mohammad (P. W. 6 ). ( 3. ) AT the conclusion of the investigation the petitioners were prosecuted with the result already stated. ( 4. ) THE appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed and hence this revision. ( 5. ) THE case of the petitioners at the trial was one of denial. ( 6. ) THE contention of the petitioners learned counsel is that the Panch witnesses to the seizure memo do not support the prosecution case and the finding that the petitioners were found in possession of opium is not sustainable. Relying on the decision in Sayad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC1848 he contended that the prosecution witness Khursheed Ali not having been declared hostile and questions which might be put in cross- examination not having put to him as contemplated under section 154 of the Evidence Act, there is no reason to disbelieve his version. Relying on the decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Daulat Ram AIR 1980 SC 1314 it is further urged that persons who had dealt with the sample not having been examined, it cannot be held that the article allegedly seized from the petitioners was opium. Contravention of Section 20-I of the Act has also been urged. ( 7. ) THE contention of the respondents learned counsel is that the appellate judgment and order do not suffer from any infirmity and no interference in revision is called for. ( 8. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 9. Contravention of Section 20-I of the Act has also been urged. ( 7. ) THE contention of the respondents learned counsel is that the appellate judgment and order do not suffer from any infirmity and no interference in revision is called for. ( 8. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 9. ) IT is well-settled that ordinarily re-appraisal of evidence is not to be done in a revision petition. The position is] different where there is miscarriage of justice as (jointed out in Botlal Bhimrajs case 1985 MPLJ 584 . On a perusal of the impugned judgment and order and after going through the record I find that cogent reasons have been given for placing reliance on the departmental witnesses and it has rightly been pointed out in the impugned judgment that slight discrepancies are bound to occur when the evidence is recorded 3 or 4 years after the actual occurrence. From a combined reading of sections 9 and 10 of the Act it follows that where an accused fails to account for opium presumption is that in respect of it he has committed an offence under the Act. ( 10. ) THE question is whether the article seized has been proved to be opium. According to the evidence of Gurjar (P. W. 7), Station House Officer, Nahargarh the seized article had been kept in the Malkhana of the Police Station. From the testimony of Assistant Chemical Examiner Gopalchahd (P. W. 4) it is established that he had received the sample from the S. O. Nahargarh. ( 11. ) THERE is no clear evidence as to who had taken the sample to the Assistant chemical Examiner Gopalchand. It is not the case of Gurjar (P. W. 7) that he had himself taken the sample to him. Therefore the ratio in Daulat Rams case is attracted. ( 12. ) APART from what has been stated above, I find that the mandatory requirements of section 20-I of the Act do not appear to have been complied with. It is not the case of Gurjar (P. W. 7) that he had himself taken the sample to him. Therefore the ratio in Daulat Rams case is attracted. ( 12. ) APART from what has been stated above, I find that the mandatory requirements of section 20-I of the Act do not appear to have been complied with. The section introduced by State amendment reads thus :- "s. 20-I. Police to take charge of article seized - All officers in charge of police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody pending the order of a Magistrate or an investigating officer, all articles seized under this Act, which he delivered to them, and shall allow any investigating officer, who may accompany such articles to the police station, or who may be deputed for the purpose by his superior officer to affix his seal to such article and to take samples of and from them. All samples so taken shall also be sealed with the seal of the officer-in-charge of police station and with the seal of the accused or his agent, if he is available. All such packs of sample shall be signed by the accused or his agent, if he is available. " ( 13. ) IN the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the sample which was analysed was received in a sealed condition. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with the sample is not ruled out. ( 14. ) IN a criminal trial, the unshifting burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt is by law cast on the prosecution. It was for the prosecution to so prove that the sample got analysed was from the article seized from the possession of the petitioners. In the instant case, in the absence of evidence as to the seal it has to be held that the material on record is not sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the sample analysed was from the article seized from the petitioners. Therefore, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioners were found in possession of opium. ( 15. ) IN the decision Mangilal vs. State of M. P. (Cri. Rev. No. 51 of 1985; dated 151-1986), Indore Bench of this Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground that it was not proved that the sample got analysed was duly sealed and signed. ( 15. ) IN the decision Mangilal vs. State of M. P. (Cri. Rev. No. 51 of 1985; dated 151-1986), Indore Bench of this Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground that it was not proved that the sample got analysed was duly sealed and signed. ( 16. ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The petitioners convictions and sentences are set aside and they are both acquitted of the offence in question. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them. The petitioners are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Petition allowed.