JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred as 'NDPS Act') passed by learned special Judge, Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Banswara on 5.12.95 in special case No. 12/93. 2. The prosecution case is that the Circle Inspector, Police Station, Banswara Shri Shantilal got Mukhbir information that a person has come from Danpur with opium. Circle Inspector Shri Shantilal with his staff and motbir witnesses reached at the place Kagdi and found the appellant sitting with a plastic bag in his left hand. After giving him the option under Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and taking his consent, search was made, 490 grams opium was recovered from the plastic bag. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken and sealed and remaining article was separately sealed on the spot. Aster preparing all necessary documents and arrest of the appellant and completing the investigation, challan was filed against the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that prosecution has not proved that the samples which were analysed in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur contained the same article which is alleged to have been recovered from the appellant. It has not been proved that the samples remained intact and sealed throughout. No seal impression has been prepared at the time of the alleged recovery and it is not proved from the statement of witnesses that any seal impression was sent to the FSL, Jaipur. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has examined all the witnesses in whose possession the sample remained till it reached FSL, Jaipur and they have deposed that the sample remained sealed and intact throughout. The seal impression has also been sent alongwith forwarding letter with the courier and the chemical analyst's report Ex. P14 goes to show that the sample was received duly sealed and intact and its seal was compared with the specimen seal impression. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the evidence on record. The learned Special Judge has discussed this aspect of the case and on the basis of the statement of PW 5 Nathulal Malkhana Incharge, PW 6 Prabhulal courier and PW 1 Mohd. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and also perused the evidence on record. The learned Special Judge has discussed this aspect of the case and on the basis of the statement of PW 5 Nathulal Malkhana Incharge, PW 6 Prabhulal courier and PW 1 Mohd. Sarif Constable - S.P. Office arrived at the conclusion that the sample remained sealed and intact until it reached FSL, Jaipur. Chemical Analyst's report Ex. P14 has also been relied upon which states that the sample was sealed and intact and its seal tallied with the specimen seal impression. On the perusal of the record I find that the prosecution has not produced and proved in the Court any seal impression prepared on the spot or even later on. Shambusingh PW 2, Sher Abjal PW 3, Manohar Narayan PW 7 and Circle Inspector Shantilal PW 8 who conducted the proceedings do not depose in the statements that any seal impression memo of the seal by which the sample was sealed was prepared at the time of recovery. Shri Shantilal also did not state that any seal impression memo was prepared at any stage of the case. He also did not state that any seal impression was sent to SP office through Shri Pabhulal who took the sample to SP office, Banswara. No seal impression has been put in the Malkhana register of the Police Station. Entry Ex. P-15 has been filed but it has not been proved by Malkhana Incharge Nathulal PW 5 and has been formally exhibited in the statement of Ramsingh Investigating Officer PW 9. Undoubtedly, there is mention of seal impression enclosing with the forwarding letter to FSL, Jaipur by SP office, Banswara Ex. P-1 and in Ex. P-13 forwarding letter from Police Station, Kotwali to S.P. Office but I agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the main infirmity in the prosecution case is that the very preparation of the seal impression memo or seal impression is not proved nor it has been produced before the Court. FIR Ex. P-7 and memo prepared under Section 55 Ex. P-8, report prepared under Section 57 Ex. P-12 and seizure memo Ex. P-3 do not show that any seal impression was prepared in this case. It has not been, therefore, established that which seal impression was sent to the FSL, Jaipur. According to which the seal of the sample was tallied. P-7 and memo prepared under Section 55 Ex. P-8, report prepared under Section 57 Ex. P-12 and seizure memo Ex. P-3 do not show that any seal impression was prepared in this case. It has not been, therefore, established that which seal impression was sent to the FSL, Jaipur. According to which the seal of the sample was tallied. This creates reasonable doubt about the fact whether the sample remained sealed throughout and also whether the sample sent to FSL, Jaipur was bearing the same seal which was affixed at the time of alleged recovery. It is not proved whether the same sample containing the article recovered from the appellant was sent for chemical analysis. In the above circumstances, a mere recital in the FSL report about tallying the seal impression is of no consequence. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor sought to argue that the seal impression has been put on seizure memo Ex. P3 and it has also been sent alongwith the forwarding letter and the sample was bearing the same seal which have been affixed on the seizure memo but this does not help the prosecution case. The sample is said to have been tallied with the specimen seal impression and not with the seizure memo and which seal impression memo was sent has not been proved by the prosecution. This aspect of the case has been left unconsidered in the impugned judgment. On the basis of the foregoing discussion I am of the view that the prosecution has not established that the articles recovered from the appellant was contraband opium. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. 6. In the result, the appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.12.95 is hereby set aside. The appellant Rusi is hereby acquitted of the offence under Sections 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******