JUDGMENT : P. M. Chauhan, J. Appellant Chandrakant Nagindas Modi is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1987 for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three years. 2. The prosecution case was that Police Inspector Shri V. L. Desai of P.C.B. got information and, therefore, called two panch-witnesses at his office at multi-storeyed Building, Surat, and alongwith the panch-witnesses and the police party went to Nanpura, Surat, and kept a watch. At about 10.15 a.m. the appellant came and got down from the rickshaw nearby Nanpura, Police Chowky, and while he was proceeding towards Popat Moholla he was stopped. He was carrying one small purse, which on search in presence of panch-witnesses was found to contain 10 pellets of charas in plastic cover. All the 10 pellets were seized and kept in a separate cover which was sealed with sealing wax, and a slip bearing the signatures of the panchas was placed on it. Thereafter the panchnama was prepared at that very place. Police Sub-Inspector, Shri N.L. Badkas then filed the First Information Report, and Head Constable, S G. Yadav carried out the investigation. 3. According to the prosecution, the muddamal 10 pellets of charas were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. They were found to weigh 10 grams. On analysis, the Chemical Analyser found them to be cannabis cative (hem), i.e. Charas. As the quantity of Charas was 10 grams, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Act and section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The learned trial Judge framed the charge for the above said offences and also for the offence punishable under section 65(e), Bombay Prohibition Act, and on trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. We are taken through the evidence by the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Even though several other points are raised, we would dispose of this appeal only on a short point. 5. 4. We are taken through the evidence by the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Even though several other points are raised, we would dispose of this appeal only on a short point. 5. Admittedly, the muddamal charas which was in a very small quantity, seized on January 28, 1987, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis on April 6, 1987. It is clear from the Certificate (Ex. 20) by the Chemical Analyser that the muddamal charas was received by his office on April 6, 1987. During that period, it appears, the muddamal remained with the police, and no satisfactory explanation was offered by the prosecution for such a delay. If at all it would have been a case of mere delay, we would not have interfered, but we are also not satisfied that the muddamal was properly sealed and it was done in such a way that there was possibility of tampering with the seal. 6. Panch-witness R. R. Patil (Ex. 9) has stated that the panchnama was prepared at the place of incident. P.S.I. Shri N.L. Badkas (complainant) (Ex. 7) has stated that 10 pellets of charas were wrapped in a paper and a slip bearing the signatures of the panchas was placed on it and the packet was tied with the thread and it was sealed with sealing-wax. Panch-witness Patil has also stated that the pellets were placed in a Khaki cover and slip bearing the signatures of both the panchas was placed on it and the packet was tied with thread and was sealed with sealing wax. When the muddamal was received by Chemical Analyser, Shri V. G. Kargastha (Ex. 18), who analysed it on April 24, 1987, the seal was found intact. The slip bearing the signatures of the panchas is produced at Ex. 10 by Shri Kargastha. On verifying the slip, it appears that it was not affixed on the packet containing the muddamal either by gum or sealing-wax'. If it would have been properly affixed, it could not have been taken out intact. It, therefore, appears that the muddamal was not properly sealed and there was all the possibility of substituting the substance. Coupled with this, the fact that the muddamal remained with the police for more than two months raises a doubt. If it would have been properly affixed, it could not have been taken out intact. It, therefore, appears that the muddamal was not properly sealed and there was all the possibility of substituting the substance. Coupled with this, the fact that the muddamal remained with the police for more than two months raises a doubt. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. It appears that this aspect has escaped the notice of the learned trial Judge. In view of this, the appeal should be allowed, and the appellant should be acquitted. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence pass against the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1987 are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and other offences for which he was charged. He is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine, if any, recovered from him, is ordered to be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.