Judgment D. C. DALELA, J. ( 1 ) BY the judgment and order dated 10. 6. 1994, the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Banswara, has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced them to a rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Against this conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. ( 2 ) I have heard the arguments of both the sides. According to the prosecution, on 3. 7. 1992 at about 4. 30 p. m. in village Bassi Chandan Singh, opium was recovered from the accused appellants when they were searched by the police. ( 3 ) DURING trial, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and the accused appellants in their statement under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. have denied the prosecution evidence and have stated themselves to be innocent. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. ( 4 ) THE recovery memos are Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2, Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4. Laxmi Lal Meena, (PW-1) is SHO, who has effected the recovery. Ex. P-12 is detailed report recorded in Rojnamcha with regard to this case. Ex. P-15 is the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara, by which the samples of the substance recovered from the accused appellants were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Ex. P-16 is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. ( 5 ) FROM the recovery memos Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2, Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4, it is evident that two samples from substance recovered from each of the accused appellants were taken, packed and sealed separately. These memos do not state as to what mark was appended on the sealed packets of the samples. However, in the detailed report recorded in Rojnamcha (Ex. P12) shows that packets of the samples were marked as A 2, A 3, B 2, B 3, C 2, C 3, D 2, and D 3. Laxmi Lal Meena (PW-1) has also stated that out of the substance recovered from the accused appellant, Bhairu Lal, two samples were taken, packed and sealed separately and these two samples were marked as A 2 and A 3. While the remaining substance, sealed in the third packet was marked as A 1. Laxmi Lal Meena (PW-1) has also stated that out of the substance recovered from the accused appellant, Bhairu Lal, two samples were taken, packed and sealed separately and these two samples were marked as A 2 and A 3. While the remaining substance, sealed in the third packet was marked as A 1. The PW-1, Laxmi Lal Meena had further deposed that out of the substance recovered from the other accused appellants, two samples from each were taken and the samples were marked as B 2, B 3, C 2, C 3, D 2 and D 3, while remaining substance were packed and sealed in the packets marked as B 1, C 1 and D 1. ( 6 ) THUS from the aforesaid, it is quite clear that the samples were packed and sealed in the packets marked as A 2, A 3, B 2, B 3, C 2, C 3, D 2 and D 3. They were not marked as A, B, C and D. PW 1 has also admitted in cross-examination that samples were not marked as A, B, C, D by him. But the perusal of the FSL report (Ex. P-16) shows that the samples received by it, were in the packets marked as A, B, C and D. This goes to indicate that the FSL report (Ex. P-16) is not in respect of the samples recovered from the possession of the accused appellants and therefore, it cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellants were in fact the opium. Obviously, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused appellants. ( 7 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellants are set aside. They are acquitted of the offence under sec. 8/18 of the NDPS Act, 1985. They shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.