JUDGMENT 1. - This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd July, 88, by which, the appellant has been found guilty of offence u/s. 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 21/2 years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. On 16th December, 86, the police party saw the appellant standing near the culvert of Gadhar-Khera. On seeing the police-party, he left the road and started walking towards the pits. A suspicion was raised and the appellant was called back. He had one bag with him; and the police-party found Poppy-Husk in that bag. They weighed the Poppy-Husk and found it to be 7 kgs. and 600 gms. A sample of 250 gms. was separately taken from the said Poppy-Husk and sealed. The appellant was arrested and produced before the SHO, PS - Sadul Shar. On these facts and allegations, the appellant was prosecuted; and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh, found him guilty of the charge and sentenced him as mentioned above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to comply with the provisions of Ss. 42 & 50 of the Act. He argued that the sample was taken from the recovered substance; it was sealed at the spot; and the sealed packet was sent to FSL for examination. But, according to him, the prosecution has failed to produce the specimen of the seal, and also it failed to prove that the seal was of the Officer-in-Charge of the PS - Sadulshahr, and thus, he argued, the provisions of S. 55 of the Act, were not complied with. In support of his argument, he relied on the cases of Biram v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 (2) RLR 322 and Gopal v. The State, 1988 RCC 417 . 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the learned counsel. According to the Act, the power of search, seizure and arrest, without warrant or authorization, has been given to the in-charge of the police station. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the learned counsel. According to the Act, the power of search, seizure and arrest, without warrant or authorization, has been given to the in-charge of the police station. Where SHO is the in-charge of the police station and under him, Sub-Inspector or Assistant Sub Inspector works, in that case, the power given in S. 42 of the Act is with the SHO of that police station, and not with the Sub-Inspector or the Assistant Sub-Inspector, working under the SHO. In the present, the Poppy-Husk was seized by the Sub-Inspector; the appellant was arrested by him; and after the seizure and his arrest, the Sub-Inspector had submitted his report to the SHO of PS - Sadulshahr. So, the substance was not seized nor was the appellant arrested by the SHO of the police station, but by the Sub-Inspector who was not so empowered u/s. 42 of the Act. 5. According to S. 50 of the Act, any officer duly authorised u/s. 42 for search of any person, shall, if such person so requires, take him, without unnecessary delay to the nearest gazetted-officer of any department, or to the nearest Magistrate. So, as per S. 50 of the Act, it was the duty of the Officer-in-Charge to have brought to that person's knowledge after the seizure, search and arrest of the person, the provisions of this section, and should have asked him whether he desired to be produced before a Gazetted - Officer or a Magistrate; and if he so desired, then, it was the duty of the Officer-in-Charges to have produced him before a Gazetted-Officer or before the nearest Magistrate. In the present case, the police officer who had seized the article and arrested the person, had not brought to the notice of that person, the provisions of S. 50 of the Act, nor had he asked him whether he desired to be produced before a Gazetted-Officer or before the nearest Magistrate. So, this was a clear violation of S. 50 of the Act. 6. According to S. 57, when any person makes any arrest or seizure under the Act, he shall, within 48 hours, next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure, to his immediate superior officer. 7. So, this was a clear violation of S. 50 of the Act. 6. According to S. 57, when any person makes any arrest or seizure under the Act, he shall, within 48 hours, next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure, to his immediate superior officer. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the provision of S. 57 of the Act, were complied with in this case, because, the Sub-Inspector who had arrested the accused and seized the substance, had submitted his report to the SHO. 8. As observed above, the Sub-Inspector who was working under the SHO of the police station, was not empowered under Sec. 42 of the Act to seize the substance and arrest the accused. So, the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector to the SHO of the police station, was not in compliance with the provisions of S. 57 of the Act. In this case, the SHO was empowered u/s. 42 of the Act, who should have sent his report to his immediate superior officer, which, in this case, has not been done. From the record, it is proved that it was sealed. The evidence is that a sealed-packet was sent to FSL for examination; and the report of the FSL is Ex.P.6, which indicates that a sealed-packet on which the seal was intact, was received for examination. The recovery memo (Ex.P.2) contains a specimen of the seal which was affixed on the packet which was sent to FSL for examination; but, a specimen of the seal was not sent to FSL. The report (Ex.P.6) does not mention about the specimen of the seal, which was affixed on the sealed packet. The report is that a sealed packet was received, and thereon, the seal was intact. Which was the seal which was affixed on the packet, has not been proved. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the specimen of the seal that was affixed on the packet, was sent to FSL, alongwith the sealed-packet. Simply affixing a seal on the recovery memo (Ex.P.2) is not sufficient compliance of S. 55 of the Act. Which was the seal which was affixed on the packet, has not been proved. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the specimen of the seal that was affixed on the packet, was sent to FSL, alongwith the sealed-packet. Simply affixing a seal on the recovery memo (Ex.P.2) is not sufficient compliance of S. 55 of the Act. No doubt, a specimen seal was affixed on the recovery memo (Ex.P.2), but, a separate specimen of this seal should have been taken on a separate paper, and it should have been produced in the court, alongwith the other papers submitted with challan. That specimen of sea1 also should have been sent to FSL alongwith the sample, so that, the Director, FSL, could have examined the specimen seal with that on the sealed packet, and he could have come to a conclusion that the seal on the sealed-packet was intact. Unless such specimen seal was sent to the FSL, it cannot be said that the seal on the packet containing the substance, had contained that very seal which was affixed on the packet. Thus, a suspicion is created about the genuineness of the seal and about the specimen of the seal; and when a doubt is created, it affects the whole prosecution case. So, the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, are fully applicable to the present case, and they are of assistance to the appellant in this case. 9. In view of my above discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; and the trial court has not been able to appreciate the provisions of the Act, correctly. The finding of the court below, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal is accepted. The accused-appellant, having not been found guilty of offence u/s. 8/15 of the Act, his conviction and sentence are set aside, and he is hereby acquitted of this offence. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******