JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment and order dated 17.6.95, the Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Cases, Churu, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short `the N.D.P.S, Act') and sentenced him to 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, 5.000 Kg. of powdered crushed poppy was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant, out of which a sample of 30 gms. was taken separately and sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, for chemical examination, whereupon, it was reported that the sample was found to be crushed capsules poppy. The F.S.L. report is Ex. P. 14. 4. A perusal of Ex. P. 14 would show that the sample was packed in a polythene packet, which was covered in a white cloth cover. P.W. 8 is the S.H.O. Shri Bhanwar Lal, who has effected the recovery from the accused-appellant. In the cross-examination, PW 8 (Bhanwar Lal) has stated as under:- " otg lcwr igys rksyk Fkk og fQj ckn esa lh/kk gh diM+s dh FkSyh esa Mkyk FkkA fdlh v[kckj ;k eksetkfe;sa esa ugha Mkyk FkkA ml yisVs x;s diM+s o piM+h dh lhy dk out fdruk gks ldrk gS ;g esa vUnkt ls Hkh ugha crk ldrkA " 5. From the above statement, it is clear that the sample was not put in a polythene bag, but was directly put in the cloth bag. But from the Ex. P. 14, it is evident that the sample received by the Forensic Science Laboratory contained in the polythene bag, which was covered in a white cloth cover. Thus, there is a basic discrepancy in the evidence of Bhanwar Lal (PW 8) and F.S.L. report (Ex. P. 14) and in my opinion, this discrepancy goes to the root of the matter. According to the S.H.O., who effected the recovery from the possession of the accused-appellant, the sample recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant was put in the cloth bag and not in the polythene bag, whereas Ex. P. 14 shows that the sample received by the Laboratory for chemical examination was contained in a polythene bag. According to the S.H.O., who effected the recovery from the possession of the accused-appellant, the sample recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant was put in the cloth bag and not in the polythene bag, whereas Ex. P. 14 shows that the sample received by the Laboratory for chemical examination was contained in a polythene bag. Thus, it is evident that the sample recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the F.S.L. report (Ex. P. 14) is not a report in respect of the sample which was in fact recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant. Thus, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the possession of the ' accused-appellant was in fact crushed poppy and consequently, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused-appellant. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed on the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused - appellant is acquitted of fare offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******