JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.3.95 passed by the learned Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (District Judge), Hanumangarh whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- or in default to undergo six months R.I. 2. The prosecution case is that 5 kg. crushed poppy was recovered on search from the appellant on 15.7.90 by Circle Inspector Sangria Shri Omprakash. A sample of 500 grams of crushed poppy was taken and sealed on the spot and remaining 4 Kg. and 500 grams crushed poppy was sealed separately. The sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur whereupon it was reported that the samples were found to be dried crushed capsules of poppy. The FSL report is Ex.P-5. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the article recovered from the possession of the appellant was infact crushed capsules of poppy. The prosecution has failed to establish that the FSL report Ex.P-5 relates to the sample taken from the article recovered from the appellant. 4. I perused the FSL report Ex.P 5 and the statement of witnesses given by the prosecution. According to the FSL report Ex.P-5 one packet sample mark `A' was received in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur but it is nowhere found that the sample taken from the articles recovered from the appellant was marked as `A'. Omprakash PW 7 and Indraj PW 3 have not stated in their examination that the sample taken on the sot was marked A'. Ex.P 1 A entry of Malkhana register Police Station Sangariya, also does not show that the sample mark `A' was deposited in the Malkhana. Ex.P-6A is the entry dated 16.7.90 in the Rojnamcha of Police Station, Sangariya showing the Rawanagi of the courier and in this entry also there is no mention of the fact that the sample was bearing mark `A'. Ex.P-7 seizure memo also does not show that the sample taken and sealed at the time of the recovery was marked by `A'. Ex.P-7 seizure memo also does not show that the sample taken and sealed at the time of the recovery was marked by `A'. It has not been therefore examined by the prosecution that when and how the sample alleged to have been taken from the article recovered from the appellant was marked 'A' before sending it to the FSL, Jaipur. It is only in Ex.P-2 letter issued from the office of District Police Superintendent, Sriganganagar that the sample packet has been shown mark `A'. The prosecution has not examined the person employed in the office of SP, Ganganagar who prepared and issued the forwarding letter Ex.P-2. There is no material on record to conclude that the same sample was marked 'A' in the SP office, Sriganganagar before sending it to FSL, Jaipur. Therefore from the above oral and documentary evidence it appears that there is reasonable doubt that the same sample of the article recovered from the appellant has not been sent to FSL, Jaipur and the report Ex.P-5 does not relate to the articles alleged to have been recovered from the appellant. The appellant's case gets support from 1996(1) RCD 363 (Raj.) (Satpal and others v. State of Rajasthan) .From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that crushed poppy powder was recovered from the possession of the appellant.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant Mukha Singh is acquitted of the charge under section 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He is in jail and shall be released, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******