Judgment D. C. DALELA, J. ( 1 ) BY the judgment dated 27. 7. 1993 the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases. Jodhpur has convicted the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under sections 8/17 and 8/18, NDPS Act and. sentenced them on each count to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lac and convicted the appellant No. 3 for the offence under section 8/17, NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lac. Against this conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred. ( 2 ) I have heard the arguments of both the sides. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution on 10. 2. 1992 at 11. 00 a. m. in the village Kakani the opium was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants and thus they unlawfully possessed the opium. From the opium so recovered six samples were taken out and they were packed and sealed separately. The samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and according to the report of the FSL the samples were of contraband substance. ( 4 ) THE recovery memo is Ex. P 6. The FSL report is Ex. P 22. The search and recovery has been effected by P. W. 11 Amrudin the SHO, Police Station, Looni. P. W. 11 has stated is the cross examination that the samples were taken and packed in glass bottles, whereas acceding to the recovery memo Ex. P 6 the samples were taken and packed in plastic containers Thus, there is a serious discrepancy in the evidence with regard to the container in which the samples were packed and sealed. According to the statement given on oath by P. W. 11 who has stated that the samples were put and packed in glass bottles whereas according to the recovery memo Ex. P 6 the samples were put and packed in the plastic containers. It is well settled in law that the deposition on oath is preferred over a memo which had been made during the investigation. Therefore, the deposition of PW 11 will have to be accepted to the effect that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellants was put and packed in glass bottles and sealed. It is well settled in law that the deposition on oath is preferred over a memo which had been made during the investigation. Therefore, the deposition of PW 11 will have to be accepted to the effect that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellants was put and packed in glass bottles and sealed. It cannot be accepted on the face of the statement of P. W. 11 given on oath that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was put in plastic containers. From the FSL report Ex. P 22, it is clear that the substance received by the Forensic Science Laboratory was in the plastic containers. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants was contraband because the FSL report Ex. P. 22 does not seem to be in respect of the substance which was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants. ( 5 ) EX. P 19 is the letter of the SHO Looni addressed to the Superintendent of Police requesting the latter that the samples may be sent to the FSL for the chemical examination. A perusal of this letter would show that three specimen seal impressions were enclosed with Ex. P 19 but from the letter of the S. P. Ex. P20 addressed to the FSL it is evident that six specimen seal impressions were forwarded by the S. P. to the FSL. Obviously when the SHO, Police Station, Looni forwarded only three specinlen seal impressions to the S. P. alongwith the six packets of the samples them how the S. P. could forward six specimen seal impression to the FSL. This creates a serious doubt with regard to the seals affixed on the samples This doubt also goes in favour of the accused-appellants. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove all reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused-appellants was in fact the contraband substance. The accused appellants are entitled for acquittal on the doctrine of benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed on the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is set aside the accused-appellants are acquitted for the offence under sections 8/17, 8/18, NDPS Act. The accused appellants are entitled for acquittal on the doctrine of benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed on the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is set aside the accused-appellants are acquitted for the offence under sections 8/17, 8/18, NDPS Act. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.