A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are interlinked and therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment, which shall govern each one of them. ( 2 ) APPELLANT in each case challenges his conviction for the alleged commission of offence punishable under section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years, and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. ( 3 ) ACCUSATIONS which led to the trial of the appellants in two appeals (hereinafter referred to as the accused) essentially are as follows: On 6-1-1992 at about 11. 10 a. m. the Inspector-in-charge of Jeypore Town Police Station (P. W. 5) got an information from Boipariguda Police Station over V. H. F. that the Ambassador car suspect to be carrying contraband articles was proceeding towards Jeypore. He directed Sub-Inspector of Jeypore Police Station (P. W. 8) to go to Brahmunigaon Check Gate. Accordingly P. W. 8 went there along with P. Ws. 1 and 4 at about 11. 30 a. m. On reaching at the check gate, they found one Ambassador car bearing registration No. O. R. 10/0452 coming from Boipariguda side. The car was detained near the check gate at Brahmunigaon, and was brought to the office of Tahsildar, Jeypore (P. W. 3), as the local people did not come forward to help them in the process of search and seizure. P. W. 8 searched the car in presence of the police officers, the Additional Tahsildar, Jeypore and the local witnesses in the Tahsil office premises, and recovered four gunny bags containing ganja, one air bag containing ganja motor cycle basket containing ganja, one country made pistol loaded with live cartridge, five nos. of live cartridges, one tin metal and one packet containing chilly powder. All these were seized under seizure list (Ext. 1 ). Thereafter P. W. 8 drew up plain paper F. I. R. (Ext. 2/2 ). The Inspector-in-charge registered it, and directed P. W. 8 to continue with the investigation. ( 4 ) THEN witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Of them P. W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, and P. Ws. 1, 4 and 7 are the witnesses to seizure of the articles. 2/2 ). The Inspector-in-charge registered it, and directed P. W. 8 to continue with the investigation. ( 4 ) THEN witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Of them P. W. 8 is the Investigating Officer, and P. Ws. 1, 4 and 7 are the witnesses to seizure of the articles. P. W. 10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Jeypore Town Police Station, who was then in charge of the Malkhana of the Town Police Station. Accused persons pleaded innocence. Four witnesses were examined in support of the defence version, of false implication. ( 5 ) THE accused persons were charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act for possessing and transporting 204 K. Gs. of ganja, and under section 27 (1-B) of the Arms Act for possession of a country made pistol with cartridge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found each one of the accused to be guilty under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act and sentenced as indicated above, but acquitted them of the other charges. ( 6 ) THOUGH in support of the appeal many points were urged, main plank of the appellants argument was that the sample sent for analysis by the Chemical Examiner as evidence from Ext. 11 weighed 25 grams. From Ext. 11 it appears that 21 packets each weighing 25 grams were received for examination. But the evidence of P. W. 8, the seizing officer is to the effect that he took sample weighing 50 grams from each of the ganja bags, dicky and air bag and kept the same in separate packets. This according to the appellants shows that the article seized was not sent for chemical examination, and something else was sent which was examined by the Chemical Examiner. It is further stated that the seized articles were not produced in Court, which is a vital defect in the prosecution case. The packets containing the samples sent for chemical analysis were never brought before the Court and were never identified before the Court by the prosecution. According to learned counsel for State P. W. 2 has categorically stated that 25 grams were taken from each packet and was sealed. He was a witness to the seizure. His stand is that there is no infirmity and vulnerability. According to learned counsel for State P. W. 2 has categorically stated that 25 grams were taken from each packet and was sealed. He was a witness to the seizure. His stand is that there is no infirmity and vulnerability. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 has stated that one Sub Inspector of Police kept sample ganja weighing about 25 grams by taking the same from each of the 21 packets containing ganja. The sample ganja was kept in 21 separate packets which were sealed. The evidence of P. W. 8, the seizing officer is to the effect that gunny bags, jery bags, dicky and air bag contained ganja weighing 20 quintals and four Kgs. He claimed to have taken sample ganja weighing 50 grams from each of those ganja bags, dicky and air bag and kept the same in separate packets, which he sealed in presence of the Additional Tahsildar and the witnesses. Confusion about 25 grams and 50 grams assumes importance in view of his statement in cross-examination that he has not specifically mentioned in the plain paper CLR. (Ext. 1) that 50 grams of sample ganja was taken from each packet but he has mentioned to have taken sample ganja from each packet ganja seized from the ear. Strangely the prosecution has not made any attempt to reconcile the discrepancy about quantity of samples collected. P. W. 2 was stated that each of the samples collected contained 25 grams. But the seizing officer who is the person responsible for investigation and seizure has stated that 50 grams for each of the samples to have been collected not only at one place but at two places once in his examination- in-chief and another point of time during cross-examination. While such contradiction exists, it has to be noted that there must be positive material before the Court that the sample analysed by the Chemical Examiner was one which was taken from the alleged seized articles, from the custody of the accused. In the instant case, there is discrepancy which I consider to be vital. In that view of the matter, I do not find it necessary to go into other contentions of the learned counsel for accused-appellants. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeals are allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore is set aside. In that view of the matter, I do not find it necessary to go into other contentions of the learned counsel for accused-appellants. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeals are allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore is set aside. The accused/appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required to be in custody in connection with any other case. ( 9 ) IT is unfortunate that in a case which involved such a huge quantity of contraband articles has been handled by the prosecuting agency in such cavalier manner. Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances pose unfathomable problems for the society. Offences relatable to such drugs and substances are to be dealt with iron hands. Any remiss in such cases is unpardonable. Unfortunately requisito care and caution has not been taken in the case at hand. Appeals allowed. .