JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated 3.8.1995 the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 8/18, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. two lass. In default of the payment of the fine a further R.I. for two years was directed. Against this conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred. 2. According to the charge framed against the accused-appellant, on 28.3.91 in the afternoon in the Village Dheerdesar Purohitan 700 gms. of opium was recovered from the residential house of the accused-appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. During the trial the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence and has stated himself to be innocent. Three witnesses have been examined in defence. After hearing both the sides the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. 3. Ex. P17 is the office copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Churu dated 16.4.91. By this letter the samples recovered from the house of the petitioner was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for the chemical examination. A perusal of this letter would show that the samples were taken out from the Malkhana of police station concerned before 11.4.91 and were sent to the F.S.L. which raised certain objections with regard to these samples and the samples were sent back to the S.P. After removing the objections pointed out by the F.S.L. the samples were again sent to the FSL with the S.P.'s letter dated 16.4.91 Ex. P.17. Thus from Ex. P.17 it is quite clear that the samples in question were taken out from the Malkhana of the police station before 11.4.91 and the same were returned from the F.S.L. alongwith its letter dated 11.4.91. The samples were aga i n sent to the F.S.L. on 18.4.91 alongwith this letter of the S.P. Churu. PW 10. Jile Singh is the Mal khana Incharge of the police station concerned. He ha s deposed that on 28.3.91 five sealed packets relating to this case were deposited in the Malkhana and the same were entered in the register Ex. P.24A. PW 10. Jile Singh is the Mal khana Incharge of the police station concerned. He ha s deposed that on 28.3.91 five sealed packets relating to this case were deposited in the Malkhana and the same were entered in the register Ex. P.24A. The witness has further said that on 18.4.91 two packets of samples of this case were given to Ram Niwas, Constable for carrying them to the F.S.L. He has stated that he has put a note in the Malkhana Register that the samples were sent to the F.S.L. on 18.4.91. PW 13 is Ram Niwas, Constable, who has stated that on 18.4.91 he was given samples of this case for carrying them to F.S.L., Jaipur. He handed over the samples to the F.S.L. vide receipt Ex. P.18. From the evidence of these two witnesses it is quite clear and evident that the samples of this case were deposited in the Malkhana of the police station on 28.3.91 and were taken out only on 18.4.91 for carrying them samples to the F.S.L. for chemical examination. Ex. P.24A is the copy of the Malkhana Register, a perusal whereof shows that the samples of this case were deposited in the Malkhana on 28.3.91 and were taken out only on 18.4.91 for sending the two samples to the FSL for chemical examination. Thus, Ex. P.24-A also corroborates that the samples alleged to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner were taken out from the Malkhana only on 18.4.91 after they were deposited on 28.3.91.There was nothing in the evidence to show that the samples were taken out from the Malkhana also before 11.4.91. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has stated about taking out of the samples from the Malkhana before 11.4.91. Therefore, from the evidence of Ex. P.17, it seems that the samples of this case were taken out from the Malkhana of the police station without any record or entry. This goes to indicate that the possibility of tampering with the samples can not be ruled out because the samples were taken out from the Malkhana of the Police Station concerned before 11.4.91 without any record or entry in the concerned register. It has also not been proved by any of the prosecution witness that the seals of the samples remained intact when the samples were taken out from the Malkhana before 11.4.91. It has also not been proved by any of the prosecution witness that the seals of the samples remained intact when the samples were taken out from the Malkhana before 11.4.91. In the circumstances the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the samples remained intact and their seals were not disturbed throughout from the stage of recovery to the stage of chemical examination by the FSL. Therefore, it is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the house of the accused-appellant was opium. Obviously the benefit of doubt goes to the accused-appellant. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused is set aside. He is acquitted of the offence under Sections 8/18, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. He shall be set at liberty if not required in any at other case.Appeal allowed. *******