JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellants in this appeal have challenged their conviction Under section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') passed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh. 2. That all the three accused-persons were intercepted on 13.9.1993 by a police party led by S.I. Ratan Singh, PW 11 alongwith other constables. While this police party reached near the Kumbha Pol of the Fort, the accused persons were found coming on a motor-cycle at about 5.00 p.m. These accused persons were given notice Under section 50 of the Act, and a search was conducted of the motor-cycle. From the Dicky of the motor-cycle, a plastic bag was found containing 500 gms. of opium. After the recovery of the opium from the motor-cycle the accused persons were arrested. Usual investigation was made and challan was presented against the accused persons. At the trial, the prosecution has tried to establish that on 13.9.1993 when the accused persons were apprehended on the motor-cycle while they were returning from Fort, the dicky of the motor-cycle contained 500 gms. of Opium. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the conviction of the appellants on the ground that the recovered contraband has not been produced in Court. This aspect of the matter was considered by the learned trial Court and the trial Court has come to the conclusion that by non-production of the recovered contraband, the defence cannot draw any benefit. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a case reported in Kabu alia Khudia v. State of Raj., 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 183 , wherein it has been observed:- "The production of seized articles is necessary, so that their chemical report can be corroborated with the seized article, but the learned Public Prosecutor is not able to show any evidence on record, and in view of the cases referred above, the non-production of the case property `Nal' in Court gives serious infirmity and doubt about the investigation." 4. I am in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge in this case that non-production of the seized article in the Court has seriously effected the prosecution case and raises a doubt about the fairness of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden, which was on it to prosecute the accused persons. 5. I am in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge in this case that non-production of the seized article in the Court has seriously effected the prosecution case and raises a doubt about the fairness of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden, which was on it to prosecute the accused persons. 5. Not only the prosecution has not produced the contraband in Court, but the way in which they have dealt with the samples was very casual. PW 15 Dhanvir Singh is the Constable. He states that on 28.9.1993 Malkhana Incharge Bhagwanlal gave him the article alongwith a forwarding letter, which was deposited by him on 29.9.1993 to the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW 12 Bhagwanlal, Malkhana Incharge states that on 29.9.1993 he has sent the articles to FSL Jaipur. Not only this witness, but, PW 11 Ratan Singh, who is the Sub-Inspector, who had recorded the information on 13.9.1993, and had conducted the search, has stated in his statement that the samples were sent from the Police Station on 17.9.1993 to S.P. Office, and from S.P. Office with a forwarding letter on 29.9.1993, the articles were sent to FSL. From the testimony of these three witnesses, three different dates emerge-out, on which the samples left the Malkhana. According to the Investigating Officer, it is 17.9.1993. According to the Malkhana Incharge, it is 29.9.1993 and according to the Career PW 15 Dhanvir Singh, it is 28.9.1993. If these dates are read alongwith the Malkhana entry Ex. P/17, then it will be more clear that there is no entry in the Malkhana Register, so produced so as to on what date of samples actually left the Malkhana. In view of the absence of entry in the Malkhana Register and discrepant dates given by the three Police Officials, who had dealt with these samples, it cannot be said that the samples were kept in safe custody, and there was no possibility of any tampering with them, and therefor e, the samples becomes doubtful. 6. From the aforesaid discussion, the custody of the samples have not been spoken to be a safe custody from 17.9.1993 to 28.9.1993 and the recovered contraband has not been produced in the Court, it would not be safe to convict the accused persons for the alleged offences. 6. From the aforesaid discussion, the custody of the samples have not been spoken to be a safe custody from 17.9.1993 to 28.9.1993 and the recovered contraband has not been produced in the Court, it would not be safe to convict the accused persons for the alleged offences. Consequently, the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them and the conviction and sentences passed against them are set aside. The accused are in Jail. They should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******