Judgment N. C. KOCHHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant was tried in case F. I. R. No. 158/87 of Police Station, Ganj, Ajmer and was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act) and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 27-3-1989 passed by Shri Bhanwaru Khan, Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer, who sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac under the former offence and to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months under the latter offence. The prosecution story, in short, was as under: ( 2 ) ON 23-12-1987 P. W. 5 Sahib Ram was posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (South ). On receipt of a secret information he organised a raiding party consisting of Han Prasad Katara, S. H. O. , Police Station, Clock-Tower, Rajendra Singh, S. H. O. , Police Station, Ramganj, Shantilal, A. S. I. Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Constables Fateh Singh, Raghuveer Singh, Bahadur Singh and Ramchand. The police party went in a jeep to Inderkot area where they joined Anwar Hussain and Mohd. Rafiq, two persons from amongst the members of public with them. At about 3. 30 p. m. that here after noon the appellant was found coming with on the attach-case in his hand and on the pointing out of the informer the appellant was stopped by the police party. On enquiry, the appellant gave his particulars regarding name and address and on search the police party found a polythene bag in the right pocket of file appellant, which was found to be containing 155 grams of charas. When the attach-case was opened the police party found a guptit besides a sum of Rs. 403,65 paisa wrapped in a green colour cloth piece. The appellant did not have any licence either to possess the charas or to possess the gupti. A sample of 30 grams of charas was separated and the sample as well as the remaining charas were converted into two separate sealed parcels. Sahib Ram took all these articles into possession vide memo Ex. P. 2, which was attested by Han Prasad Katara, Rajinder Singh, Shanti Lal and the two public witnesses. A sample of 30 grams of charas was separated and the sample as well as the remaining charas were converted into two separate sealed parcels. Sahib Ram took all these articles into possession vide memo Ex. P. 2, which was attested by Han Prasad Katara, Rajinder Singh, Shanti Lal and the two public witnesses. Sahib Ram sent the appellant with the case property along with Constables Pitha Singh and Datar Singh to Police Station, Ganj, Ajmer where the case was registered against the appellant. The sample was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (the TLaboratoryt) from where report Ex. P. 8 was received showing that the sample was that of charas. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the challan against the appellant in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The trial was conducted by Shri Bhanwaru Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Ajmer who has found the appellant guilty and has convicted and sentenced him as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. ( 4 ) IN order to prove its case the prosecution had examined Constable Reghuveer Singh, Mohd Rafiq Constable Gheesa Ram Constable Bahadur Mal, Dy. S. P. Sahib Ram. Head-Constable Prahalad Singh, S. H. O. Jaipal Singh as P. W. 1 to P. W. 7 respectively. P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 and P. W. 5 have been produced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence whereas P. W. 4 Gheesa Ram set had taken the sample to the Laboratory and had deposited the same there. P. W. 6 is the In-charge of Malkhana where the case property was deposited after its recovery and P. W. 7 Jaipal Singh, S. H. O. , Police Station, Ganj, Ajmer had investigated the case after its registration in the police station. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the police had joined Mohd. Rafiq P. W. 2 and one Anwar Hussain from amongst the members of the public and the recovery of charas and gupti had been made in their presence. Mohd. Rafiq has denied that he was ever joined in the investigation and had deposed that he had seen the. Rafiq P. W. 2 and one Anwar Hussain from amongst the members of the public and the recovery of charas and gupti had been made in their presence. Mohd. Rafiq has denied that he was ever joined in the investigation and had deposed that he had seen the. appellant for the first time in the Court. He was cross- examined by the learned P. P. but nothing had been taken out from him. Raghuveer Singh and Bahadurmal who have been examined as P. W. I and P. W. 3 respectively have supported the case of the prosecution in their statements on oath. In cross-examination P. W. I Raghuveer Singh deposed that the charas recovered from the appellant was of black and blue colour and denied that the colour of the charas was brown. In his cross-examination Bahadurmal P. W. 3 could not tell as to what was the size of the attach-case which was recovered from the person of the appellant. Neither of these two witnesses have attested the recovery memo which has been attested by Han Prasad Katara, Rajinder Singh and Shantilal be sides by the two public witnesses. It is further admitted by Raghuveer Singh that his statement was recorded on 24-12-1987 i. e. after a day of the date of the occurrence. If he presence of Raghuveer Singh and Bahadurmal, in these circumstances, appears to be doubtful. The non-production of the other public witness namely Anwar Hussain besides the three police officers who have attested the recovery memo, without any explanation, casts great doubt on the case of the prosecution. ( 6 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. Although Sahib Ram has deposed that he had sealed the gupti at the spot, no seal was found on it when it reached the police station and when it was produced in the Court at the time of examination of the witnesses. This is the case of the prosecution that the sample and remaining charas were converted into sealed parcels and had been handed over along with the gupti to Constables Pitha Singh and Datar Singh who took the same and the accused to the police station. Neither of the two Constables have been examined to depose that the seal on the samples remained intact and they were not tempered with during the time they remained in their possession. Neither of the two Constables have been examined to depose that the seal on the samples remained intact and they were not tempered with during the time they remained in their possession. Similarly, according to the case of the prosecution, Gheesaram P. W. 4 had taken the sample from the Malkhana of the police station and had deposited them in the laboratory at Jaipur. Not a work has been said by Gheesaram to show that the seal on the sample remained intact and may were not tempered with during the time it remained in his possession. ( 7 ) FOR all the reasons I am of the view that the learned Trial Court has erred in coming to me conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I accept the, appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the learned Trial Court and acquit the appellant. He is in custody. He should be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The attach-case and the sum of Rs. 403. 65 paisa and other articles belonging to the appellant and recovered from his possession be returned to him without any delay. Appeal allowed.