JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has been convicted for having committed offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter cal1ed 'the Act') by keeping in his possession Charas and selling Charas to a bogus punter, witness Zahir Hassan (PW 4), on 27.11.90. The quantity sold or the quantity possessed is not disclosed. The judgment is by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, dated 12.5.92, in Session Trial No. 55/91. The appellant has been sentenced to RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac (Rupees One Lakh), and in default further RI for 2 years. 2. The prosecution charge was that, at Bhopal, in the area of Sabjimandi, Itwara, on 27.11.90 at about 10.15 p.m., this appellant was selling Charas to customers clandestinely and thus, contravening the provision of section 8 (c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Sub-Inspector L.S. Chouhan (PW 5) had learnt about it and joined with him, Head Constable Shiv Mohan Singh and also Constable Ramlal (PW 3). He joined with him Zahir Hassan (PW 4) in order to trap the appellant. He handed over one currency note of Rs.10/- to Zahir Hassan, instructing him to purchase some Charas from the appellant, and after purchase, to give necessary signal, so that the accused could be apprehended. Zahir Hasan went to accused and purchased one tablet of Charas for Rs. 10/- and gave that currency note to him and signalled to the police. The witness Amarchand (PW 1) was also joined by police for this event. The Sub-Inspector searched the person of accused and recovered 5 tablets of Charas wrapped in a paper and also the currency note of Rs. 10/- paid by Zahir Hassan to accused/appellant. He also recovered a tablet purchased by Zahir Hassan from the accused. He prepared three seizure memos of these articles and currency note of Rs. 10/-. Earlier he had prepared a 'Handing Over' memo of this currency note, while giving it to Zahir Hassan. 3. The recovered Charas was put into two packets and was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, where it could not be examined. Then it was sent to Government Popium Alkaloid Works, Neemuch, where the examination showed, it to be Charas. Hence the prosecution. 4. 3. The recovered Charas was put into two packets and was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, where it could not be examined. Then it was sent to Government Popium Alkaloid Works, Neemuch, where the examination showed, it to be Charas. Hence the prosecution. 4. The learned trial Court rejected the charges about possession of five pudias of Charas by the accused appellant on the ground that the caution laid down under section 50 of the Act, which requires searching officer to give choice to the person, to be searched, to have himself searched by a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate, was not adopted by police. No such choice was given, so the search was found to be illegal against the particular possession and was rejected. However, the search to the extent of recovery of Rs. 10/- currency note was accepted as reliable as section 50 of the Act does not apply to that part of the recovery. Relying on this recovery, the recovery of one tablet from Zahir Hassan, who himself produced it to the Investigating Officer, evidence of the Police Officer and the report of Government Opium Alkaloid Works, Neemuch which declared it to be Charas, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him. 5. During hearing of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of the witness and the various seizure as also the report of Government Opium Alkaloid Works, Neemuch. None of the seizure memos states if the Charas tablet produced by Zahir Hassan, was sealed by Investigating Officer and if so, by what seal? Even in evidence, he has not said anything about it. Head Constable Shiv Mohan Singh and Constable Ramlal, and even I.O.L.S. Chouhan have also not stated about it. Therefore, it is not an established fact, that whatever was produced by Zahir Hassan as having been purchased by him from this accused, was sealed or kept intact at the police station, till it was sent to the Laboratory. 6. The report of the Laboratory Exhibit P-8 is interesting. This report shows, two parcel containing five pudias and one pudia respectively in both the packet, and sample paper of Jabti was found affixed on them. The report Exhibit P-8 mentions that the parcel as received, was found sealed and the seal tallied with fascimile of seal on the jabti chit of both the packages. 7. This report shows, two parcel containing five pudias and one pudia respectively in both the packet, and sample paper of Jabti was found affixed on them. The report Exhibit P-8 mentions that the parcel as received, was found sealed and the seal tallied with fascimile of seal on the jabti chit of both the packages. 7. Report does not show what was the fascimile of the seal. The seizure memos do not show that seal has been used or what it was, if at all, any seal has been used. If the Investigating Officer who recovered Charas and sealed it at the spot of recovery or even, thereafter, at the police station, he had to mention the fact in the seizure memo or in atleast sending memo, that it was sealed with a particular seal and kept intact till it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. 8. The Investigating Officer has not stated anything about sealing or nomenclature of the seal. He has stated that initially, the parcels were sent to Sagar Forensic Laboratory for examination but they were returned by that Laboratory and then, under their advice sent to Government 'Opium Alkaloid Works, Neemuch. It is not brought on record that the parcels returned with same seal intact, from Sagar. It appears clearly possible in the case, that the package which was sent to the Laboratory was not the same which was recovered from the witness Zahir Hassan, who claimed to have purchased it from the accused. The mere recovery of Rs. 10/- currency note. which was handed over by Investigating Officer to Zahir Hassan, from the accused, if read with the statement of Zahir Hassan that he has purchased something for that money from the accused, will not prove that the accused was in possession of Charas or has sold the Charas to Zahir Hassan. The fact that substance purchased was Charas, has not been established. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has asserted other serious infirmaties in the evidence and in the process of investigation. 10. The Investigating Officer did not send any report to his superior, after receiving information that accused was selling Charas. He organised raid before any written information was sent and a single report about information, raid and recovery was sent which became basis of FIR of this case. 11. 10. The Investigating Officer did not send any report to his superior, after receiving information that accused was selling Charas. He organised raid before any written information was sent and a single report about information, raid and recovery was sent which became basis of FIR of this case. 11. Even if we ignore this aspect, the infirmity in the process of sealing was so serious, that no other infirmity, while there are many in this case, need to be noticed. The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The charge remains not proved. The trial Court judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. The appellant is said to be in jail. A warrant of his release shall be issued immediately.