JUDGMENT (ORAL) M.B. Ghodeswar, J. - The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.2.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 1990 convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D. P.S. Act), and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs to suffer further R.I. for two years. 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that P.W.3 Subhash Panse who was working as P.S.I. Local Crime Branch, Bhandara, on receiving information that the appellant-accused was selling ganja and charas on the bank of river Vainganga at village Kardha, asked P.W; 1 Abhimanyu to act as a Punter for the raid on the accused. As P.W. 1 Abhimanyu accepted the offer, P.W. 3 Subhash Panse gave two rupees note for the purchase of ganja from the accused. He gave him directions for giving the signal after the transaction with the accused. Panchnama (Exhibit 13) was prepared in which the number of two rupees note was mentioned P.W.l went near the accused who was catching fish in the river Wainganga by hook. He asked the accused to give ganja paid of two rupees. The accused gave the ganja paid to P.W. 1 and on giving the agreed signal; the raiding party including P.W. 3 Subhash Panse and punches P.W. 2 Purushottam caught the accused, and searched his person. Ganja and chars was found in his possession. The articles were seized and seizure panchnama Exhibit 16 was prepared. P.W. 3 Subhash Panse sent his complaint to the Police Station, Bhandara where the offence was registered and the seized property was deposited in Malkhana of Bhandara Police Station with P.W.4 Govinda Dhabale on 4.9.1990. 3. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty. His defense is of total denial. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses that P.W. 1 Abhimanyu was dealing in the sale of ganja and charas and the property was seized from P.W. 1 Abhimanyu and then foisted on the accused. 4. 3. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty. His defense is of total denial. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses that P.W. 1 Abhimanyu was dealing in the sale of ganja and charas and the property was seized from P.W. 1 Abhimanyu and then foisted on the accused. 4. Shri M.R. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised two points - (1) that there is no satisfactory evidence that the persons raiding party offered themselves for search to the accused before the search of the accused was taken, (2) that there is no satisfactory explanation of the prosecution in respect of delay in depositing the property in the police station. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant accused has taken us through the evidence on P.W.1 Abhimanyu Punter, P.W. 2 Purushottam panch on the seizure panchnama Exhibit 16 and P.W.3 Subhash Panse Investigating Officer, P.W. 4 Govinda Dhabale with whom the property was deposited. A perusal of Exhibit 16 seizure memo shows that there is no mention of the fact that the persons of the raiding party had offered themselves for search to the accused and about sealing of the seized progeny. Moreover, P.W. 2 Purushottam, panch witness, has admitted in the cross-examination that the accused was also searched in the office of P.W. 3 i.e. Local Crime Branch, Bhandara. P.W. 2 PUrilshottam has not stated in his evidence about the willingness of the members of the raiding party to offer themselves for search and sealing of the seized articles. 6. P.W.3 Subhash Panse has also not stated in his examination-in-chief about the offer for search of the accused. But, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he asked the accused to take search, but the accused did not take the search and from this admission, the prosecution claims that the members of the raiding party offered them- selves for search. P.W. 3 Police Officer Subhash Panse is the Investigating Officer. He was certainly interested in the prosecution of the accused. There is no documentary evidence in this respect. Therefore, the statement of P.W. 3 Subhash Panse in this regard, cannot be accepted. 7. As already observed above, the prosecution witnesses did not speak about sealing of the articles at the time of seizure. There is no mention in the seizure panchnama Exhibit 16 about sealing of the articles. There is no documentary evidence in this respect. Therefore, the statement of P.W. 3 Subhash Panse in this regard, cannot be accepted. 7. As already observed above, the prosecution witnesses did not speak about sealing of the articles at the time of seizure. There is no mention in the seizure panchnama Exhibit 16 about sealing of the articles. However, the Chemical Analyser's report shows that the Chemical Analyser received the samples in sealed condition and P.W. 3s evidence in this regard is that he deposited the property with P.W. 4 Govinda, P.S. 1., in-charge of Malkhana of Bhandara Police Station and there is the admission of P.W. 2 Purushottam that the accused was also searched in the office of P.W. 3 Subhash Panse. The delay in depositing the property with P.W. 4 Govinda raises certain doubts about the sealing of the property. There is much substance in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 8. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The learned trial Court has not given sound reason for arriving at its finding. The conviction of the appellant u/s. 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 therefore cannot be sustained in the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.2.1991 - passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 1990 is quashed and set aside. The appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.