JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-3-89 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar found the appellant guilty u/S. 18 of N.D.P.S Act and sentenced him to 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 5 years R. I. 2. Kanhaiya Lal A.S.I along with Pratap Singh Constable searched the house of the appellant and opium weighing 1 Kg. 700 gram was found. A case was registered. The sample was taken from the seized opium and was sent to F.S.L. for examination and on it is report it was found that sample was of opium. The appellant was challenged and was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge as mentioned above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in this case A. S. I. Kanhaiya Lal searched the house of the appellant and he himself is the informant of complaint in this case. Investigation of this case was also conducted by. him. It was argued that the complainant A. S. I. should not have investigated the case. 4. It was also argued that the provisions of Sec. 50 and Sec. 57 of N.D.P.S. are mandatory provisions. It was also stated that the S.H.O. has not reported to his immediate superior Officer about the arrest or seizure. 5. It was also argued that according to A.S.I., two samples of 30 gram were obtained from the seized opium and both the samples were sent to F.S.L. for examination, but according to the statements of other witnesses the samples which were taken were of 20 grams each. The report of the F.S.L. was seen and it shows that the samples were of 15 gram and 20 gram. So the difference in the statements of the witnesses and the opium which was sent F.S.L. shows that the sample was tempered somewhere and this is fatal to the prosecution case. 6. It was also argued that the report of F.S L. Ex. P9 was taken on record and exhibited but during cross-examination of the accused u/S. 313 Cr. P. C. no question was asked about this report Ex. P9. The accused should have been given an opportunity to explain the report Ex. P9 which was being utilised against him. 6. It was also argued that the report of F.S L. Ex. P9 was taken on record and exhibited but during cross-examination of the accused u/S. 313 Cr. P. C. no question was asked about this report Ex. P9. The accused should have been given an opportunity to explain the report Ex. P9 which was being utilised against him. So without giving him opportunity this document should not have been relied by the trial Court and this infirmity is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7. It was also argued that when this sample was taken it was sealed at the spot. The specimen of the seal was not produced in the Court along with the challan papers. The specimen of the seal was not sent to the Laboratory when the sample was sent. This is also fatal to the prosecution case. 8. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Gopal v. State of Raj., 1988 RCC 417 : 1988 RCC 556 : 1989 Cr. Law Report Raj. 620 and 1989 Cr. Law Report Raj. 45, Sattar Mohd. v. State and 1976 S. C. 985, Bhagwan Singh v. State of Raj. and also on the case of Ugam Raj v. State, S.P. Cr. Appeal No. 5/85, decided today i.e. on 7-9-89 . 9. In view of the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant the arguments have great substance and force. So keeping the principles laid down in all these rulings the conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained. 10. As a result, the appeal is accepted. The appellant is not found guilty of the offence u/S. 18 of the NDPS Act and he is acquitted. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******