ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) GANESH Naik (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has preferred this appeal questioning legality of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore holding him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (In short, the 'act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, with default stipulation of one year's rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) ACCUSATIONS which led to the trial of the accused are as follows :on getting information of cultivation of cannabis plants in Baliapal area, the officer-in-charge of Baliapal Police Station made a station diary entry in that regard and requisitioned the services of higher police officer and Executive Magistrate to arrange a raid in that area. Accordingly on 5-2-1992 he along with the police personnel and the Tahsildar of Basta went to village Tikirapada and on reaching the spot they found the accused inside his betel vine. The said vine and backyard of the accused were adjacent to each other. On conducting raid in the backyard and betel vine, they found 130 numbers of cannabis plants raised therein. In presence of the witness the OIC (P. W. 5) collected those plants and seized the same. He also arrested the accused, who was working inside the vine. The seized plants were kept in a bag and the same was sealed. First information report (Ext. 2) was lodged by the OIC himself and investigation was undertaken. Since on chemical test, the plants were found to be cannabis plants with stem, leaves, fruits etc. Charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. Subsequently the accused was committed to the Court of Session, and trial was held by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore. ( 3 ) THE accused took a plea that he had not raised any cannabis plant, and did not know anything about the betel vine. ( 4 ) IN order to further its accusations, prosecution examined six witnesses and several documents were exhibited including the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. 4 ). The accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 5 ) IN support of the appeal Mr. S. Palit, learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record that the accused was in conscious possession of article alleged to have been found. 4 ). The accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 5 ) IN support of the appeal Mr. S. Palit, learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record that the accused was in conscious possession of article alleged to have been found. In any event, according to him there being considerable unexplained delay between the alleged date of seizure and the date on which the articles were sent for chemical examination the prosecution is vitiated. Mr. Sujata Das, learned counsel for State on the other hand supported the order. ( 6 ) I do not think it necessary to go into the question of conscious possession, as I find that the appeal is bound to succeed on the other plea raised. The prosecution case is that the seizure was allegedly made on 5-2-1992, and for the first time on 2-4-1992 seized articles were produced before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore with a prayer to send the same to State Forensic Laboratory, Rasulgarh for chemical examination. There is not even a word breathed as to who was in custody of the seized articles during the intervening period. Neither the seizing officer (P. W. 5) nor any other witness says anything about it. Fact situation involved in this case is almost identical to that in Valsala v. State of Kerala, AIR 1994 SC 117 : (1994 Cri LJ 1 ). A vital link relating to custody of the seized articles is missing and as observed by the apex Court in Valsala's (supra) that is fatal to the prosecution. That being the position, it would be unsafe to convict the accused-appellant. He is entitled to benefit of doubt. The appeal is allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be in custody in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed