Honble PRASAD, J. – These two appeals arises out of the same judgment, and therefore, are being disposed of by one judgment. (2). The accused appellants by these appeals have challenged their conviction u/s 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act) passed against them by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Hanumangargh. (3). The case of the prosecution is that on 27.1.93 at 5.15 p.m. Incharge Police Station, Sangaria, Shri Sher Singh received an information by an informer that two persons have started from Mandi Sangaria on Bhagatpura Road towards Branch Canal. This information was recorded by Shri Sher Singh in Register Roznamcha of the Police Station, which is Ex.P/11. The final Report of this information is Ex.P/10. Having received this information, Shri Sher Singh alongwith other police personnels started from the Police Station and having reached at Kranti Chowk, Sangaria, they called Amrik Singh and Karm Singh, Motbirs witnesses. When this party reached near the Sadul Branch Chhanal, they found two persons going on cycles. One of them was carrying white colour bag and another was carrying a military colour bag. They were stopped. They were given a notice u/s 50 of the Act and they agreed to search by Shri Sher Singh, SHO. On search the bag contained by Bhola Singh, 25 Kgs. of popy husk, and the bag contained by Angrej Singh 17 Kgs. for popy husk was found. A sample of 250 gms. each was taken from these bags. These samples were duly sealed and other necessary documents of arrest and seizure were prepared. After the completion of the investigation, challans were presented and the cases were committed to the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanuman- garh for trial. Seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution. No defence witness was examined by the accused and the trial was completed. (4). The learned Judge after trial believed the prosecution story and convicted the accused-appellants u/s 8/15 of the Act and sentenced them to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and Public Prosecutor. (6). Counsel for the appellants have urged that the cases of the accused can be disposed of on the single ground that the samples, which were sent for chemical examination were not the samples, recovered from the accused persons. 1,00,000/- each. (5). I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and Public Prosecutor. (6). Counsel for the appellants have urged that the cases of the accused can be disposed of on the single ground that the samples, which were sent for chemical examination were not the samples, recovered from the accused persons. The Che- mical Anay lists Report, Ex.P/16 says that the samples sent to it were marked as A and C. The letter of the S.P., which accompanied these samples is Ex.P/8 and according to Ex.P/8, the samples which were sent to the F.S.L. were marked as A and B. (7). To resolve this discrepancy, the receipt of Forensic Science Laboratory can be looked upon, which is Ex. P/9. In this report, there is no identification mentioned of these sampales, and therefore, it cannot be said that the samples which were sent by the Investigating Agency by Ex.P/8 are the samples examined and report prepared as Ex.P/16. There appears to be force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The letter of the S.P. says that the samples were marked as A and B and F.S.L. Report Ex.P/16 says that the samples which were examined were A and C. Where had the samples marked B gone and from where C has come, is not clear from these documents and receipt Ex.P/9 is totally blank about the identification of these samples. A perusal of the statement of PW 5 Shri Shetan Singh, not only does not help the prosecution, but, rather damages the pro- secution case. He in his statement, states that on 21.2.93 he was posted as L.H.C. On that day alongwith Ex.P/8, a letter of the S.P. Office, he carried two packets to the F.S.L. Jaipur alongwith samples seal impression. But, in next breath, he denied the same and says that he had only carried packets. The only other thing which he deposes is that the receipt of the samples were Ex.P/9. He has not said in his state- ment that he did not tamper with the samples while they were with him, and this omission can be considered to be quite damaging the prosecution. The only other thing which he deposes is that the receipt of the samples were Ex.P/9. He has not said in his state- ment that he did not tamper with the samples while they were with him, and this omission can be considered to be quite damaging the prosecution. Where the career does not certify that he did not tamper with the samples and the sample markings changed from the start to end, i.e. A and B in the S.P. Office and A and C in the F.S.L. report, then it cannot be said that the samples remained safe, and if the samples were not safe, then the question of maintaining the conviction becomes problematic. The samples were seized on 27.1.93 and were sent on 21st February, 93. This first period is also explained, and therefore, a reasonable doubt arises about the correctness of the prosecution. (8). In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. (9). In the result, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. The judgments passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh convicting and sentencing the appellants, are set aside and the accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The accused are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.