JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal from jail has been preferred by Sattar Mohammad against the judgment dated 21-6-1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kota, by which, he convicted the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (here in after to be referred as the Act) and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo one year's RI. 2. ASI Mukhpal Singh along with other Police Constables of P.S., Makbara was on patrolling on 25-3-1986. The ASI was given information by some informant that, a person named Abdul Sattar is sitting near the Ice Factory with some drug in small packets. At this the ASI along with Police Constables and Shobha Ram and Abdul Rasheed came to the Ice Factory at 10.35 a.m. He found Abdul Sattar sitting in the corner of the Ice Factory and in presence of these persons search was taken and 14 packets were found in his pocket. On opening these packets he found some narcotic content in them. These packets were weighed and the weight of the packet was found to be of 13 grams. Abdul Sattar had no licence to sell the drug so he was found to have committed the offence under Section 8/18 of the Act. The ASI submitted this written report Ex.P 3 to the SHO P.S., Makbara along with Abdul Sattar and the seized articles. During investigation the sealed articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. There after, the charge sheet was submitted. 3. The Trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Act, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty and sentenced him as mentioned above. 4. The learned Amicus Curiae argued that the recovery should not be believed. While seizing the articles there were two independent witnesses. Abdul Rasheed PW 1 was one of the recovery witnesses who has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile. Another independent witness Shobha Ram was not produced by the prosecution. There remained only the statements of the police-officials. So the fact of recovery of the articles has not been established. 5. Abdul Rasheed PW 1 was one of the recovery witnesses who has not supported the prosecution story and was declared hostile. Another independent witness Shobha Ram was not produced by the prosecution. There remained only the statements of the police-officials. So the fact of recovery of the articles has not been established. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the statement of police-officer cannot be thrown away and on the basis of such statement conviction can be based. It is correct that it is not the principle of law that the police-officer should not be believed. The conviction can be based on the solitary statement of a police-officer but actually the statement of police-officer in such circumstance when the independent witnesses have not corroborated the prosecution story deserves to be strictly scrutinized. After seeing the entire record I find that one independent witness has not supported the prosecution case and another independent witness has not been examined and the statement of police-officer is not of such sterling worth which would prove that the recovery was made from possession of the appellant. Hence, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor has no substance. 6. After going through the judgment it is found that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied on the report of the FSL. In the judgment he has mentioned the report of the FSL mark 1. Actually, this report has not been submitted during the examination of the witnesses. It is possible that this report was in the file and the report of the FSL need not have been proved but at least this should have been tendered in evidence by the prosecution. The Inspector who investigated the matter the ASI who detected the appellant have been examined but they have not stated a single word in their statement that the report of the FSL has been received and which is on the record. Simply production of the FSL report at the time of statement would be sufficient to mark it as exhibit. Unless a document is exhibited the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have relied on it. When the document was not tendered in evidence, the effect was that the accused had no opportunity to ask a single question to any witness about this FSL report. Therefore, the FSL report is most important report and it was the duty of the prosecution to have exhibited it. When the document was not tendered in evidence, the effect was that the accused had no opportunity to ask a single question to any witness about this FSL report. Therefore, the FSL report is most important report and it was the duty of the prosecution to have exhibited it. Then if we look at the FSL report where mark 1 is written and this has the initial of the Additional Sessions Judge. Under his initial the date is written as 20-6-1986. This date is obviously incorrect. It is possible that instead of 20-6-1986 he ought to have written 20-6-1988 because the final arguments in this case were heard on 20-6-1988. When the final arguments were heard the Additional Sessions Judge marked this FSL report as mark 1 without bringing to the notice of the accused that he is marking this document, without giving an opportunity to the accused to challenge the FSL report and without granting him any opportunity to rebut the report of the FSL. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have relied on this document and because he has relied over it the entire judgment becomes bad in law. Therefore, great prejudice has been caused to the accused and on this very ground the judgment is liable to be set aside. It creates suspicion in the establishment of the case against the accused and benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. 7. In view of my above observation I find that the prosecution has not established the case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, therefore, cannot be maintained. 8. As a result, the appeal is accepted The appellant is not found guilty under Section 8/18 of the RSPS Act and he is acquitted of this offence. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forth with, if not required in any other case.Appeal accepted. *******