JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated 18.3.1994 the learned Special Judge Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under section 8/18, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for ten years 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 charge framed against the accused-appellant by the learned trial court on 30.4.1993 at 11.45 a.m. in the village Bashir Ki Gali Aam a bag containing 1 kg. of coagulated juice of opium poppy was recovered from his possession. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, who are P.W. 1 Sahab Ram, P.W. 2 Chimna Ram, P.W. 3 Manohar Lai, P.W. 4 Richhpal Singh SHO, P.W. 5 Sunder Kumar, P.W. 6 Anirudh Kumar, P.W. 7 Mahendra Singh and the Forensic Science Laboratory's report is Ex. P. 19 and the recovery memo is Ex. P. 3. In his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused-appellant has denied the prosecution evidence and has stated himself to be innocent. He has examined no witness in the defence. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. P.W. 4 Richhpal Singh is the SHO, who has effected the recovery from the accused-appellant. The trial court has written three notes while recording the statement of P.W. 4. A perusal of all the three notes would show that three sealed packets was produced before the trial court while the evidence of P.W. 4 was recorded. These packets are Art. 1, Art. 2 and Art. 3. Art. 1 is the sealed bag and when it was opened in the trial court the opium was found in a polythene bag within the bag Art. 1. P.W. 4 has specifically stated that Bag (Art. 1) alongwith opium was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant and the packets Art. 2 & Art. 3 are the packets of the samples taken from the substance recovered from the accused and separately packed and sealed. From the recovery memo Ex. P. 3 it is evident that from the substance recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant two samples of 30 gms. From the recovery memo Ex. P. 3 it is evident that from the substance recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant two samples of 30 gms. each were taken and separately packed and sealed and the remaining substance was packed in the same bag that was recovered from the possession of the appellant and sealed. This bag was marked as A. Obviously Art. 1 being the substance kept in the bag recovered from the accused-appellant is not the sample, but the remaining substance alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. Therefore, Art. 1 is the bag sealed and described as A in the recovery memo Ex. P 3. FSL report Ex. P 19 clearly shows that the packet B was sent to it for chemical examination. Thus, Art. 1 was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. 5. Form the remaining notes written by the trial court in the statement of P.W. 4, it is evident that the trial court while recording the evidence of P.W. 4 did not open the sealed packets Art. 2 & Art. 3. The original seals affixed on these two packets were intact. Even the chits having the signatures of P.W. 4 and motbirs glued on each of the packets Articles 2 & 3 were not disturbed. Nowhere P.W. 4 has stated that the seals affixed on Articles 2 & 3 were not the same which was affixed at the time of the recovery. P.W. 4 has clearly stated that in the packets Articles 2 & 3 the samples taken out of the substance recovered from the appellant were packed and sealed and on each a chit was glued duly signed by him and motbirs. The notes written by the trial court and the statement given by P.W. 4 relating thereto clearly go to indicate that the packets Art. 2 & Art. 3 were never opened after their packing, sealing and chiting at the time of recovery and the original seals and chits were found by the trial court to be intact and undisturbed. This goes to indicate that the samples contained in packets Articles 2 & 3 were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the sub-stance of Art. 2 & Art. 3 was never put to the chemical examination. This goes to indicate that the samples contained in packets Articles 2 & 3 were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the sub-stance of Art. 2 & Art. 3 was never put to the chemical examination. Had the sample of the substance kept in Art. 2 & Art. 3 been put to chemical examination the packets were bound to be opened for the examination. But as the packets Art. 2 & Art. 3 were never opined after their packing and sealing the samples contained in Art. 2 and Art. 3 were, obviously, never put to chemical examination. 6. The FSL report Ex. P. 19 says that the remanents of the sample substance has been returned in the same container and cover alongwith the labels and the same was duly sealed with the seal of the Forensic Science Laboratory. There is nothing on record including in the evidence of P.W. 4 to indicate that the seals affixed on Art. 2 or Art. 3 were was that of Forensic Science Laboratory. 7. The recovery memo Ex. P. 3 shows that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant was packed in three packets. Two packets contained samples of 30 gms. each and one packet contained the remaining part of the substance. All the three packets were produced before the trial court and both the packet of samples were with the original seals and chit intact indicating that the packets of the samples were never opened after they were sealed at the time of recovery and these samples were never put to the chemical examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, it is obvious that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused was not put to the chemical examination and the FSL report Ex. P. 19 is not in respect of the substance recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. Therefore, it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the possession of the appellant was in fact the coagulated juice of the opium poppy. The benefit of doubt obviously goes to the accused-appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. On the doctrine of benefit of doubt the accused- appellant is acquitted of the offence under section 8/18, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The benefit of doubt obviously goes to the accused-appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. On the doctrine of benefit of doubt the accused- appellant is acquitted of the offence under section 8/18, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******