C. R. PAL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant who has been convicted and sentenced under S. 20 (b) (i) of the. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short 'the Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment far a further period of one year has preferred this appeal assailing the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada, Bhawanipatna in 2 (a) C. C. No. 163 of 1992. ( 2 ) THE case against the appellant is that on 9-6-1992 at about 12. 30 p. m. the S. I. of Excise (P. W. 3) while patrolling on the platform at Kosinga Railway Station with his other staff found the appellant in possession of a raxin bag containing two packets of Ganja. He weighed the contraband articles which came to 10 kgs. and seized the same under the seizure list, Ext. 1, in presence of witnesses. The S. I. collected 25 grams of Ganja as samples from each of the two packets of Ganja seized from the appellant and sent thesaid samples to the Deputy Drugs Controller Bhubaneswar, for chemical examination with a forwarding letter. After further investigation and on receiving the chemical examiner's report he submitted the prosecution report against the appellant. On the above allegations, the appellant was charged for the offence under S. 20 (b) (i) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. ( 3 ) THE case of the appellant is a complete denial of the allegations levelled against him. ( 4 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses out of whom P. W. 1 is a constable of Excise, and is a witness to the seizure, P. W. 2 is an independent witness and P. W. 3 is the S. I. of Excise. In course of trial, the prosecution also exhibited the seizure list, Ext. 1, copy of the forwarding letter Ext. 2 and report the Chemical Examiner, Ext. 3. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The trial Court relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. In course of trial, the prosecution also exhibited the seizure list, Ext. 1, copy of the forwarding letter Ext. 2 and report the Chemical Examiner, Ext. 3. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The trial Court relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution having failed to establish that the contraband articles recovered from the possession of the appellant were the very same articles sent for chemical examination, the appellant cannot be held guilty for possessing the contraband articles in question. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that the seizure of the articles in question has duly been proved and there is no scope to doubt that the seized articles were Ganja and were possession of the appellant. In view of the above rival contentions, it becomes necessary to examine the evidence available on record to see how far the findings of the trial Court regarding the recovery of Ganja from the possession of the appellant is sustainable. In the above context, it noticed that out of the three witnesses examined in this case P. Ws. 1 and 3 are official witness and P. W. 2 is the only independent witness. P. W. 2 has denied his knowledge about the occurrence and thus has not supported the prosecution case. This witness has not also been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. From the other two witnesses, P. W. 1 is a constable of Excise. He has deposed that on suspicion the S. I. of Excise opened the bag and found contraband Ganja in the bag and after taking the weight and collecting the samples seized the same. This witness has not whispered a word about putting the seized articles or the samples collected therefrom under sealed cover. According to P. W. 1, the contraband articles were taken to the office of the S. I. of Excise along with the appellant, P. W. 3, the S. I. of Excise, in his testimony has deposed that on suspicion he searched the bag of the appellant and recovered two packets of Ganja which weighted 10 kgs. and he seized the same under the seizure list, Ext. 1. and he seized the same under the seizure list, Ext. 1. He has also deposed that as the bag of the accused contained the contraband articles in two packets, he collected sample of 25 grams from each of the packets and sealed the same with proper seal. Then he took the accused and the seized Ganja to his office where he kept the Ganja and forwarded the accused to the Court of S. D. J. M. , Bhawanipatna on the next day. The version of P. W. 3 that he sealed the sample packets has not been supported even by the other official witness P. W. 1. From the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3, it appears that the seized articles were taken to the office of the S. I. of Excise where the same were kept. There is no evidence of any kind to show in what condition those articles were kept in the office of the S. I. and under whose custody. From the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 it does not appear that he sealed the bag containing the packets of contraband articles recovered from the appellant. Though the appellant was forwarded to the court on 10-6-1992 i. e. on the next day of the alleged detection as it appears from the record maintained by the learned Magistrate, the seized articles were never produced before the Court till 2-6-1994. P. W. 3 has deposed that on 28-7-1992 he sent the samples for chemical examination under a forwarding letter and received the Chemical Examiner's Report, Ext. 3, thereafter. From the office copy of the forwarding letter which has been marked in this case as Ext. 2, it appears that the articles were sealed and the specimen impression of the seal was affixed to the forwarding letter. The P. W. 3 has deposed "the packets were sealed but the specimen seal was not taken in the forwarding letter". He has also deposed that he personally took the sample packets to the Deputy Drugs Controller. He has further deposed "the seal which I used is still with me". Of course from the Chemical Examiner's Report, Ext. 3,it appears that the seals of the sample packets were intact and were identical to the specimen impression of the seal given on the forwarding memo. But the observation of the Chemical Examiner given in Ext. He has further deposed "the seal which I used is still with me". Of course from the Chemical Examiner's Report, Ext. 3,it appears that the seals of the sample packets were intact and were identical to the specimen impression of the seal given on the forwarding memo. But the observation of the Chemical Examiner given in Ext. 3 directly contradicts the version of P. W. 3 who has deposed that the packets were sealed, but the specimen seal were not taken in the forwarding letter. The articles were seized on 9-6-1992 on which day the samples were also collected, but the same were sent for chemical examination only on 28-7-1992 i. e. more than 1 1/2 months after the seizure. There is no evidence to suggest that the articles were kept in proper custody till the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the remaining articles were produced before the court. The seal with which the said articles were sealed was all along with the P. W. 3, the Investigating Officer. There is no evidence on record to show that after effecting the search and seizure the officer sent a full report within forty eight hours to his immediate official superior as envisaged under S. 57 of the Act. Non-compliance of this provision also affects the veracity of P. W. 3 adversely and his evidence that the articles were seized and were kept in sealed condition and the samples collected therefrom were also kept in sealed condition becomes unacceptable in absence of any other evidence to corroborate his version. For the above reason, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the samples sent for chemical examination and the contraband articles produced before the court were the articles seized from the appellant as from the evidence on record, the apprehension that there was possibility of tampering with the seized articles cannot be ruled out. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt that what were seized from the possession of the appellant were the very articles produced before the court or that the samples sent for chemical examination formed parts of those seized articles. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada, Bhawanipatna in 2 (a) CC No. 163/92 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge under S. 20 (b) (i) of the N. D. P. S. Act. He be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention in custody is not required in connection with any other case. Appeal allowed. .