JUDGMENT T.D. Sugia, J. - The appellant was charged for an offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985, on the allegation that he was found in possession of 2.75 grams of brown sugar (morphine) on 14th May, 1988, at his room situated at Rawalfond, Margao. By Judgment dated 27th May, 1989, continued on 29th of the same month, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao, convicted him under Section 21 of the Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh, and in default, to undergo a further period of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case was that on information received, the P.S.I. Rodrigues proceeded on 14th May, 1989, at about 10.45 p.m. to the residence of the appellant in company of two panchas and the other policemen. He found the door of the room of the appellant ajar and saw him heating brown sugar on a silver foil which was kept over a kerosene lamp and further inhaling the same. On personal search of the appellant, five packets containing brown sugar were recovered and in a search conducted in the said room, eight more packets, also containing brown sugar, were recovered. 3. The appellant's case has been one of complete denial. He come out with a case that no drugs were recovered from him, or from his' house, and that only some amounts of money attached by the police were found therein. 4. The prosecution examined, in all, five witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Mohander Lolienkar, who was a panch taken by the police at the time of the raid and who witnessed the alleged search and recovery of the brown sugar, P.W. 4 who is the Chemical Analyser and P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 who are policemen. On basis of this evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded a finding that guilt has been brought home to the appellant, and consequently, convicted him for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act, and further, sentenced him with the minimum penalty under the said Act. S. Mr. Kirtani, the learned Counsel appointed to the appellant under the Legal Aid Scheme, after taking us through the prosecution evidence, contended that a comparison between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Nos. S. Mr. Kirtani, the learned Counsel appointed to the appellant under the Legal Aid Scheme, after taking us through the prosecution evidence, contended that a comparison between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 with the evidence of P.W. 4 Maria Caldeira gives cause to a doubt inasmuch as it appears that there was a tempering with the evidence. He further submitted that no evidence had been adduced to link up the samples which, according to police, had been taken and those which were tested. Equally, he submitted that no explanation was given for the delay in forwarding the samples allegedly collected at the time of raid, to the Chemical Analyser. Finally, he submitted that the mandatory provisions of the law as regards the search and the proceeding for a search without a warrant had not been complied with. 6. It is not necessary for us to go into all the above submissions made by the learned Counsel, since in our view, this Appeal succeeds on the first ground itself. In fact, the link between the alleged recovery of drugs from the room and the person of the accused and the drugs analysed by P.W. 4 had not been established and this is a fatal infirmity in the prosecution case. The offence under Section 21 of the Act indeed is in respect of possession of prohibited drugs, and hence, once such possession is not established, naturally, the necessary consequence is that person charged for such offence is entitled to an acquittal. 7. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 as well as P.W. 5 state that when the raid was conducted to the room of the appellant, a personal search on his body was conducted and five packets containing a powder, which was found to be morphine, were found inside the underpant of the appellant. They further stated that in a search of the room, eight more packets were found. Then, they stated that eleven of the recovered packets were put inside an envelope which was duly sealed and signed by the panchas and the Police Officers. The remaining two packets of brown sugar were sealed, and apparently, sent along with the charge-sheet to the Court. Then, they stated that eleven of the recovered packets were put inside an envelope which was duly sealed and signed by the panchas and the Police Officers. The remaining two packets of brown sugar were sealed, and apparently, sent along with the charge-sheet to the Court. Now, P.W. 4 Maria Caldeira stated that she received on 27th May, 1988, a sealed packet bearing seals of the Margao Circle Police Inspector and that a piece of paper had been pasted on the said envelope with the following particulars: "Margao Town P.S. Cr. No. 103/88 Under Section 21 of N.D.P.S. ACT 1985 Envelope containing in all 11 brown sugar packets (small once) weighing about 275 grams attached and sealed on spot Ravonfond on 15-5-88. She further stated that the seals on that envelop were intact and after opening it, she found brownish powder weighing 1,38 grams in 11 butter paper packets which were inside the said envelope. Alongwith, according to her, she also found inside a copy of the letter No. PG/MRGI Town/4515/1988 dated 20th May, 1988, from the P.S.I. Margao Town Police Station. She further stated that she returned the sealed packets received from the police and the butter papers duly sealed in an another envelope. It becomes thus clear from the evidence of the witness Maria Caldeira that a copy of the letter dated 20th May, 1988 was found by her alongwith the 11 butter paper packets, each of them containing 1, 38 grams of brown sugar, inside the sealed packet received by her on 27th May, 1988. This evidence necessarily indicates either that the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 and regards the sealing of the brown sugar recovered on the spot itself is not true or that the was a tampering with the envelope sealed at the time of the search before it was sent to P.W. 4. This evidence necessarily indicates either that the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 and regards the sealing of the brown sugar recovered on the spot itself is not true or that the was a tampering with the envelope sealed at the time of the search before it was sent to P.W. 4. The prosecution has not explained this discrepancy, and therefore, a doubt arises as to whether the eleven butter paper packets received by P.W. 4 are or not the butter paper packets allegedly recovered from the appellant at the time of the raid This being so, the link between the alleged recovery of brown sugar from the person of the appellant and from his room and, the butter paper packets sent to Maria Caldeira has not been established, with the result that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was found in possession of the prohibited drugs. This failure of the prosecution is fatal, since it touches the essential ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act. 8. The Appeal, therefore, succeeds and, in consequence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, anti the consequent sentence are quashed and set aside. The appellant to be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. The State to pay the fees prescribed under the Legal Aid Scheme, to the learned Counsel who was appointed by the Court to represent the appellant. Appeal allowed.