Honble SAXENA, J. — This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.3.91 passed by the learned A.D.J. No.3, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 37/88, whereby he rejected accused petitioners appeal and upheld the judgment dated 20.8.86 of the learned A.C.J.M. No.2, Kota, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s.4/9 of the Opium Act, 1878 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months together with a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default to further undergo S.I. for four months. (2). Stated in succinct the relevant facts are that on 8.3.80, PW Bhopal Singh, Narcotics Inspector apprehended the petitioner at Roadways Bus Stand, Kota in the presence of motbirs and conducted a search where upon 2.3 Kgms. opium was recovered from his bag. It is alleged that a sample of 430 gms. of opium was taken , there from and was duly sealed. Thereafter, the said Inspector brought the petitioner before the S.H.O.P.S., Naya Pura, Kota and submitted written report Ex.P.5, whereupon a case was registered u/sec.4/9 of the Opium Act. After investigation, challan was filed in the court of learned A.C.J.M. No.2, Kota. The petitioner denied the indictment. After trial, the learned trial Magistrate by his judgment dated 20.8.86 found the petitioner guilty for the offence u/s.4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Kota rejected petitioners appeal and affirmed the confection and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Hence this revision petition. (3). I have heard Mr. Mahendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.A.Khan, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record of the lower Court in extenso. (4). The short point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that in this case, neither the alleged F.S.L. report was admitted in evidence nor the same was proved by any prosecution witness nor the contents thereof were read over, explained and put to the petitioner while recording his plea u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and, as such, there is not a shred of evidence to prove that the alleged material recovered from the possession of the petitioner was opium. Mr. Mr. Mahendra Singh has further contended that in this case, the link evidence to the effect that the seals of the sample remained intact till the sample reached the Forensic Science Laboratory is also conspicuously missing and that the learned lower courts have ignored this material and significant infirmity in this case and committed grave illegality in convicting the petitioner. (5). Learned Public Prosecutor after perusing the record of the learned lower court submits that it is true that no such question was put to the petitioner while recording his plea under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. but asserts that PW 4 Bhopal Singh, Narcotics Inspector has deposed that he had smelt and tasted the material which was recovered from the petitioner and that on the basis of his experience, he testifies that it was opium. The Public Prosecutor, therefore, contends that this evidence is sufficient to prove that the material which was recovered from the possession of the petitioner was nothing else. but opium. (6). I have bestowed my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. A careful perusal of the trial courts file reveals that the Addl. P.P. II submitted the report of the Assistant Director, State F.S.L., Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 11.4.80 in the trial court on 23.1.81. However, the learned Magistrate did not procure the remarks of the petitioner or his counsel whether he admitted the genuineness of the contents thereof under Sec.294 Cr.P.C. Thereafter during trial, none of the prosecution witnesses proved the said report. Again the learned trial Magistrate did not put any question regarding the contents of the F.S.L. report to the petitioner while recording his plea under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the F.S.L. Report was neither admitted in evidence nor the contents thereof were put to the petitioner under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. still then the lower courts have relied on the F.S.L. report. Since the petitioner was not confronted with the contents of the F.S.L. report, a great prejudice has been caused to him and this is a serious infirmity, which is fatal to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the contents of the F.S.L. report cannot be read against the petitioner. (7). It will suffice to mention that merely saying that by smelling and tasting, the material, alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, was opium is not at all reliable and sufficient evidence. In such circumstances, the contents of the F.S.L. report cannot be read against the petitioner. (7). It will suffice to mention that merely saying that by smelling and tasting, the material, alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, was opium is not at all reliable and sufficient evidence. The oral testimony of PW 4 Bhopal Singh, Narcotics Inspector on this count does not conclusively prove that the material recovered from the possession of the petitioner was opium. In my considered opinion, the prosecution evidence on this count is quite vague, incomplete and inconclusive and that on the basis of such a scanty evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the material recovered from the possession of the petitioner was opium and on this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. (8). Besides this, the normal link evidence is also missing in this case. PW-3 Virendra Singh, In-charge, Malkhana has not proved the relevant date of the entry in the Malkhana Register. PW-9 Rajendra Singh, who was allegedly carrying the samples to the F.S.L., has specifically admitted that despite his best efforts, he could not get the receipt of the F.S.L. about the samples which he had deposited there. There is no evidence to establish that seals of samples remained intact till it reached the F.S.L.Therefore, this link evidence is also missing in this case. The learned lower courts have conveniently ignored this material infirmity in this case. In such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the material recovered from the possession of the petitioner was opium within the meaning of Opium Act and, therefore, the learned lower courts have committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. (9). The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition is allowed and the judgment dt. 30.3.91 passed by the learned A.D.J. No.3, Kota and the judgment dated 20.8.86 passed by the learned Addl. C.J.M. No.2, Kota are set aside. Accused petitioner Jassa Ram is hereby acquitted of the offence u/s.4/9 of the Opium Act, 1878. Since the petitioner is already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.