JUDGMENT 1. This revision under Section 401 Criminal procedure code has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 6.8.79 whereby the learned First Appellate Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of accused-petitioner Madanlal, recorded by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu, u/s 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930 along with the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- imposed on him. In default the accused has been ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated arc that on the night intervening between 27th and 28th of April 1972 at about 3.30 A. M. Constable Jodhraj, along with some other Constable, went out on 'Gasht' on the town of Churu. He hhd been instructed by the S. H. O. that accused Madan Lal indulges in illegal trade of 'Ganja'. He generally gets Ganja through either a car or a truck. On that night he saw some car going towards the lane of Shri Madanlal. He then hired a taxi and went to the lane of Madanlal, and after stopping at some distance; the driver of the taxi was sent to find out as to what was being unloaded from the car. The taxi driver informed L. C., Jodhraj that Ganja is being taken out from rear portion of the car and it is being put inside the houses. Jodhraj immediately went to the police station and reported the matter to the S. H. O. Bhanwarlal, P. W. 5. S. H. O., along with Jodhraj and other police officers, after recording the rapat in the Rojnamcha, went to the house of Madanlal. When the door of Madan Lal's house was knocked, Madanlal opened it. The police party went inside the house and found some bags of Ganja on the chabutra situated inside the house. On weighing those bags they were found to contain 221.500 Kgs. of Ganja. Samples from each bag were taken out and scaled and the remaining part of the Ganja in all these bags were also sealed. Memos were prepared. The accused persons were arrested and later after investigation, the accused was challaned in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who after trial convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as afore- said. Samples from each bag were taken out and scaled and the remaining part of the Ganja in all these bags were also sealed. Memos were prepared. The accused persons were arrested and later after investigation, the accused was challaned in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who after trial convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as afore- said. Two of his companions, while facing trial, absconded, so after some time he was tried separately. Appeal against his conviction has been dismissed and hence this revision. 3. Mr, Niranjan Gaur submitted that in this case it has not been proved that Madanlal is the owner of the house as also the goods that were found inside that house. He submitted that some strangers unloaded the goods in that house. 4. I have perused the evidence on record and I find that so far as this finding of the first appellate court is concerned, it is based on sound evidence. P. W. 2 Jodhraj and P. W. 5 Bhanwarlal have categorically stated that they knocked the door of Madanlal's house and it was accused Mandanlal who opened the door. Unknown persons cannot be allowed to unload anything out of the car. That pattern of evidence is against the normal conduct. Nobody would allow a stranger at that dead hour of night to unload such unknown goods and, therefore, it can safely be held that it was Madanlal's house and the goods which were unloaded from the car were kept into his house, with his conscious t knowledge and he knew fully well that the bags contained ganja. 5. However, one very important fact has been overlooked by both the courts, to which my attention has been drawn for the first time at the revision stage by Mr. Gaur. He has submitted that in this case the Chemical Examiner's report, Ex. P. 13 is based on certain samples which were sent by S. P. Churu, through one Bhanwar Singh, vide letter No. 4507 dated 15.5.72. These samples, on chemical analysis, were found to yield positive results. He has, however. submitted that this chemical analyser's report Ex. P. 13, about its contents being Ganja, cannot be taken into consideration to fasten the guilt on the accused. 6. In this respect he referred to the statement of P. W. 7, Bhanwar Singh, who has taken these samples for chemical analysis. He has, however. submitted that this chemical analyser's report Ex. P. 13, about its contents being Ganja, cannot be taken into consideration to fasten the guilt on the accused. 6. In this respect he referred to the statement of P. W. 7, Bhanwar Singh, who has taken these samples for chemical analysis. Shri Bhanwar Singh has stated that on 19.5.72, he was posted at Kotwali Churu and on that day I-lead Constable Ghasi Ram delivered him the packets concerning F.I.R. No, 50/72 to be sent to the Chief Chemical Analyst's Office, at Jaipur. He took these packets in the sealed condition to the Chemical Analyst's Office, delivered them there and obtained the receipts. That receipt has not been produced and no chemical analyst's report of the packets which were delivered to the Chief Chemical Analyst's Office on 19.5.72, has been produced in the case. P. W. 5 Bhanwarlal, S. H. 0., has also stated that these packets were delivered by him to Bhanwar Singh, L. C. for being taken to the Chemical Examiner's Office and the report relating to these 6 sealed packets is Ex. R, 13. P. W. 7 Bhanwar Singh has nowhere stated that after he took possession of these packets from the Head Constable, Ghadsi Ram, he took them to the Office of the Superintendent of police, Churu, and after he obtained a letter from the S. P. Office, Churu, addressed to the Chief Chemical Analyst. No evidence has also been produced to prove that the packets which were delivered to Bhanwar Singh by S. P. Office, Churu, through letter No. 4606, dated 15.5.72. were taken back by him to the police station and were deposited in the Malkhana. No evidence has also been led to prove that these articles were at all sent from Kotwali, Churu. to the S. P. Office, Churu, and if sent there with whom they were sent and on what date. Obviously, this must have been sent before 15 of May, 1972, because the samples which have been examined by the Chemical Examiner, vide Ex. P. 13 were the packets which have been sent for chemical analysis with one Bhanwar Singh to Chemical Examiner, Jaipur, on 15.5.72 and not on 19.5.72 as claimed by P. W. 7 Rhanwar Singh. Obviously, this must have been sent before 15 of May, 1972, because the samples which have been examined by the Chemical Examiner, vide Ex. P. 13 were the packets which have been sent for chemical analysis with one Bhanwar Singh to Chemical Examiner, Jaipur, on 15.5.72 and not on 19.5.72 as claimed by P. W. 7 Rhanwar Singh. If he was the very person who has taken the packets to the Chemical Analyser's Office, evidence had to be preduced as to why after receipt of these packets from S. P. Office, he took them back to the Police Station and even if he took them to the Police Station. to whom he delivered these packets and they were kept in whose possession, these packets remained where between 15.5.72 to 19.5.72 and whether they were kept in sealed condition or not? It is not clear that when Shri Bhanwar Singh took delivery of these packets from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Churu, on May. 15, 1972, why he did not straight away take them to the chemical analyser's office and why was he obliged to re-deposit them with the Police Station. All these links in the chain, are totally missing. He does not say that these packets were delviered to him from S. P, Office, Churu, He only says that these packets were delivered to him on May 19, 1972 and that too not by the S. P. Office. but by the Head Constable Ghadsi Ram of Kotwali, Churu. Thus, the packets which have been received in the Chemical Analyser's Othce, to which Ex. P, 13, Chemical Analyst's report pertains, probably are not the same packets which have been delivered to Bhanwar Singh Head Constable (sic. L. C.) of P. S. Churu. On account of this confusion about the identity of the packets, it cannot be held that Ex. P. 13 relates to the same articles which were seized and of which samples were also taken out and sealed by S. H. O. Bhanwar Singh (sic Bhanwar Lal), P. W. 5, on 27.7.72 from the house of Shri Madanlal and which were kept in the P. S., Churu. 7. The argument cuts at the very root of the entire matter because if the goods seized from the house of Madanlal were not the same to which Ex. 7. The argument cuts at the very root of the entire matter because if the goods seized from the house of Madanlal were not the same to which Ex. P. 13, relates, then he cannot be held guilty of the offence u/s 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 8. It is unfortunate that the learned Public Prosecutor did not get this matter clarified. It is also unfortunate that this point was (sic not) at all raised before the trial court or even before the first appellate court, by either side, and, therefore, no clarification could be obtained. However, in the light of the evidence that has been led in the case, it is clear that no connection can be established between the report Ex. P. 13, and the packets which have been delivered to Bhanwar Singh, by Head Constable Ghadsi Ram. In that view of the matter, the accused deserves the benefit of doubt and the consequent acquittal. 9. The result is that I accept this revision, set aside the judgment of both the lower courts, i.e., of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, dated 6.8.79 and the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu, dated 5.1.79 and acquit accused Madanlal of the offence u/s 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. He is already on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bond.Revision accepted. *******