JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated 30.6.1995, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ratangarh (Churu) has convicted the accused appellant for the offence Under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and has sentenced him 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. 3. According to the prosecution, on 9.12.1988 in the afternoon in Ratangarh, the SHO, Munshi Ram, searched the person of the accused appellant and recovered 1.000 Kg. of dried crushed capsules of poppy from his possession. 4. Munshi Ram (PW 4) is SHO, who has effected the recovery from the possession of the accused appellant. In his statement, Munshi Ram (PW 4) has stated that the sample contained in the packet Art. 1 and the remaining substance contained in another packets Art. 3 were in the Court and both the packets were duly sealed and chits having the signatures of Munshi Ram (PW 4) glued on each of the packets-Art. 1 & Art. 2 were not disturbed. 5. According to Munshi Ram (PW 4), the contraband substance was recovered from the possession of the accused appellant and out of which a sample was taken, packed and sealed in a packet while remaining substance in another packet. Thus, two packets of the substance were prepared at the time of recovery-one having the sample and other having the remaining substance. Both the packets were duly sealed and on each, a chit was glued bearing the signatures of Munshi Ram (PW 4). From the statement of Munshi Ram (PW 4), it is evident that during trial on 23.2.1995 when the statement of Munshi Ram (PW 4) was recorded by the trial Court, both the packets were present in the Court and both these packets were duly sealed and even the chit having the signatures of Munshi Ram (PW 4) glued thereon, were not disturbed. Nowhere, Munshi Ram, has stated that the seals affixed on Art. 1 were not the same which were affixed at the time of recovery. He has not said that the seal contained on the packet of the sample Art. 1 was that of Forensic Science Laboratory. Nowhere, Munshi Ram, has stated that the seals affixed on Art. 1 were not the same which were affixed at the time of recovery. He has not said that the seal contained on the packet of the sample Art. 1 was that of Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus, from the evidence of Munshi Ram (PW 4), it is evident that the original seals affixed at the time of recovery on the packets Arts. 1 & 2 were intact and even the chits having the signatures of Munshi Ram (PW 4) glued on each of the packets were not disturbed. This goes to indicate that the packets Arts. 1 & 2 were never opened after their packing sealing and chiting at the time of recovery and the original seals and the chits were found by the PW 4 (Munshi Ram) in the trial Court to be intact and undisturbed. This further goes to show that the sample contained in Art. 1 and the remaining substance contained in Art. 2 were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and thus, the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was never put on the Chemical examination. Had the sample of substance kept in Art. 1 been put to the chemical examination, the packet Art. 1 was bound to be opened for the examination. But the packet Art. 1 was never opened after its packing and sealing and as such the sample contained in Art. 1 was never put to the chemical examination. 6. The FSL report (Ex. P/9) says that the remanents of the sample substance has been returned in the same container and cover along with the labels and was duly sealed with the seal of the Forensic Science Laboratory. There is nothing on record including in the evidence of PW 4 to indicate that the seals affixed on Art. 1 or Art. 2 were/was that of Forensic Science Laboratory. 7. The recovery memo (Ex. P/1) shows that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was packed in two packets. One packet contained the sample of sample and the other packet contained the remaining substance. 7. The recovery memo (Ex. P/1) shows that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was packed in two packets. One packet contained the sample of sample and the other packet contained the remaining substance. Both the packets were produced before the learned trial Court and both the packets were with the original seals and chit intact indicating that the packet of the sample was never opened and was never put to the chemical examination and the FSL report (Ex. P/9) is not in respect of the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellant. Therefore, it is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was in fact the crushed capsules of poppy. 8. The benefit of doubt obviously goes to the accused appellant. 9. The FSL report (Ex. P/9) says that the sample received by it was in a packet mark A but the recovery memo (Ex. P/1) does not say that the sample packed and sealed was marked A. Nowhere in Ex. P/1, it has been mentioned that the sample recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was marked A. During the trial, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed that the sample recovered from the possession of the accused appellant was packed in a packet and marked A. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the sample recovered from the possession of the accused appellant and packed and sealed was not marked A. 10. It is true that the letter of the S.P. (Ex. P/4) and Malkhana register (Ex. P/7-A), there is a mention of a packet mark A. But nowhere it has been proved by the prosecution as to when and who has put the mark A on the packet of the sample which was not so marked at the time of recovery. All this creates a serious doubt as to whether the sample contained mark A was in fact recovered from possession of the accused appellant. The prosecution has therefore, not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the FSL report (Ex. P/9) is in respect of the sample which was in fact recovered from the possession of the accused appellant. Obviously, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused appellant.In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. P/9) is in respect of the sample which was in fact recovered from the possession of the accused appellant. Obviously, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused appellant.In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the offence under section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******