TEJ SHANKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant Ganesh against order of conviction and sentence dated 24-2-1994 recorded against him by Shri P. C. Aggrawal, the then Sessions Judge. Bhind. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated the facts as unfolded by Amarsingh are that on 285-1993 PW 2, Amar Singh Sisodia was posted as Excise Sub-Inspector Lahar. On that date at about 12. 30 p. m. he received an information from the informant that a person had kept opium with him and he was. in front of Middle School. Lahar on Bhind-Bhander Road and he was going to sell it. On this information he informed the District Excise Officer, Bhind as required u/section 42 (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N. D. P. S. Act), vide Ex. P. 5. He then took the witnesses which were available and went near the Middle School on Bhind-Bhander Road. He reached there at 12. 45 hours. He prepared a panchanama as required u/section 50. Ex. P. 4 and got it signed by witnesses. He enquired the name of the accused and disclosed his name as Ganesh. He told the accused that he may get his search either by the Excise Officer or by the nearest Magistrate. Ganesh told that it is not necessary to call any body, he himself can make search. Immediately he prepared panchnama and took search of the accused. A blue polythene was recovered in which 135 gms. of opium was kept. He prepared memo Ex. P3 and got signatures of the witnesses. A, seizure memo was prepared by him and he saw the blue coloured polythene which was recovered from the accused. It was found that it contained black solid substance. On smell it was suspected that it was opium. It was burnt wholly and there was smell. He was sure that it was opium. Thereafter he prepared memo Ex. P. 1. He put is signatures- signatures of the witnesses as well as of the accused. From the opium be prepared two samples of 20 gms. each for chemical examination. Both the samples and the remaining 95 gms. of opium were taken into custody. He took signatures of the accused and witnesses on the chits. He sent the recovered article for chemical examination on 7 -6- 1993 to the District Excise Officer, vide memo Ex. From the opium be prepared two samples of 20 gms. each for chemical examination. Both the samples and the remaining 95 gms. of opium were taken into custody. He took signatures of the accused and witnesses on the chits. He sent the recovered article for chemical examination on 7 -6- 1993 to the District Excise Officer, vide memo Ex. P. 6. ( 3 ) THE accused was charged u/section 17 of the N. D. P. S. Act. He denied the charge. He also denied the recovery. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire evidence and hearing parties held the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him and sentenced to a term of 10 years R. I. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the prosecution has not been able to prove the recovery from the appellant. In any case if the recovery has been proved it was sent for chemical examination after inordinate delay. There is no evidence on record to show as to how the property was dealt with. He placed reliance upon Valsala v. State of Kerala, and another decision of this Court wherein the same Authority has been relied upon reported in 1994 J. L. J. 533 He also contended that there is also non-compliance of Sections 55 and 57 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the recovery has been proved by the witness Amarsingh in his statement specifically. He also referred to the statement made in para 6 and pointed out that recovered article was kept in his office. ( 5 ) AS far as the question of recovery is concerned, it may be mentioned that PW 2 Amar Singh who was the Excise Sub-Inspector at that time and who too had received the information as stated above about the occurrence, has been examined. It is significant to mention that he had also stated that he had taken witnesses and took signatures of witnesses on the memo. One thing is clear that there is nothing in his statement to show that before taking search the witnesses had given any search to the accused. He simply stated that he told the accused that if he wanted the search to be taken by the Excise. One thing is clear that there is nothing in his statement to show that before taking search the witnesses had given any search to the accused. He simply stated that he told the accused that if he wanted the search to be taken by the Excise. Officer or by the nearest Magistrate, the accused told that there is no necessity and he himself could make search. It was his duty as officer taking search to have given his own search as well as of the Witnesses before taking search of the accused but nothing has been stated in this direction by him. He stated that 135 gms. of opium kept in blue coloured polythene was recovered and memo Ex. P. 3 was prepared on which he himself singed and had obtained signatures of witnesses. It is very significant that he has not said that it bore the signatures of the accused and he had obtained his signatures. It is very important. Once it is not shown that the document showing recovery has been proved bearing signatures of the accused, the recovery itself becomes doubtful. In this connection it is pertinent to mention that Ex. P. 3 purports to bear the signatures of the two witnesses of Santoshsingh and Rajendra Kishore, Santoshsingh stated that his signatures were obtained by Amarsingh Sisodia over the papers and he was not told anything. His signatures were obtained in the office. His further stated that his signatures were not recorded by the police. He also deposed that search of the accused was not taken before him. The other witness Rajendra Kishore. PW 3. who had also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case categorically, stated that nothing was recovered from him. He had however, admitted his signatures over the documents. Thus, in absence of specific statement of Amarsingh with respect to the fact that he had obtained signatures from the accused on recovery memo and denial of the recovery it cannot be said that the recovery is proved. In any case, the recovery becomes Tdoubtful. ( 6 ) ASSUMING for the sake of argument that recovery of alleged opium was made as claimed by the prosecution, it has to be seen as to whether necessary provision of law had been complied with. In any case, the recovery becomes Tdoubtful. ( 6 ) ASSUMING for the sake of argument that recovery of alleged opium was made as claimed by the prosecution, it has to be seen as to whether necessary provision of law had been complied with. Section 55 of the N. D. P. S. Act provides that officer-incharge of a Police Station has to take charge of the keep in safe custody pending the orders of the Magistrate of all articles seized. Provision has also been made under this section to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station. There is no evidence worth the name that this provision was at all complied with. Again Section 57 provides that whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under the Act he shall make a full report of the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior. There is nothing in the statement of Amarsigh to show that he had complied with this provision. ( 7 ) APART from what has been said above there is another defect in the case. According to P. W. 2, Amarsingh, the recovery was made on 28-5-1993 and he had kept the recovered article in his office. The sample was sent for chemical examination on 7-6-1993, vide Ex. P. 6. Ex. P. 6 purports to be a carbon copy of letter No. 130 dated 7-6-1993 addressed to the District Excise Officer, Bhind and the prayer made in this letter is that the sample be sent for chemical examination at an early date. It, therefore, does not show that through this letter the sample was sent for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner dated 17-1-1994 is on record. It has not been exhibited by the learned Court blow though it should have been, in view of the provisions of Section 293, Cr. P. C. This section provides that certain reports of Government Scientific Experts may be used as evidence in any enquiry trial or other proceeding under the Code. It shows that it is dated 17-1- 1994 and the sample was received in the office of the laboratory on 8-1-1994 i. e. the sample must have been sent somewhere near this date. P. C. This section provides that certain reports of Government Scientific Experts may be used as evidence in any enquiry trial or other proceeding under the Code. It shows that it is dated 17-1- 1994 and the sample was received in the office of the laboratory on 8-1-1994 i. e. the sample must have been sent somewhere near this date. Consequently, it is apparent that there was inordinate delay in sending the sample for chemical examination. No evidence has been adduced to show as to where the sample was kept. The mere statement of Amarsingh that it was in the office does not show where it was kept and whether it was in safe custody so as to rule out the possibility of any manipulation. It was sent for chemical examination after long interval. In the case of Valsala (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant the article seized was produced in the Court after a period of more than three months and three is no evidence whatsoever at all to show with whom the seized article was lying there was nothing to show whether it was sealed or kept there. On the facts of that case the Apex Court observed that the article seized appears to have been not kept in proper custody and proper form so that the Court can be sure that what was seized only was sent to the Chemical Examiner. There was a big gap and an important missing link. More or less, similar is the position in the case in hand. Here also in spite of the statement of Amarsingh that the sample remained in his office, there is nothing to show as to where the seized article was actually kept. Amarsingh has also stated that he had put the seal of his signatures and did not put the seal of the department. He did no send the sample seal as well. There is nothing to show as to when the article was sent. In these circumstances it is extremely doubtful that any article was recovered it is doubtful whether the same article was sent for chemical examination. In this case the Authorities appear to have been very careless. Under these circumstances. I am of the view that the accused could not be convicted. The learned Trial Court committed an error in holding the accused guilty and sentencing him as aforesaid. In this case the Authorities appear to have been very careless. Under these circumstances. I am of the view that the accused could not be convicted. The learned Trial Court committed an error in holding the accused guilty and sentencing him as aforesaid. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY the appeal succeeds. It is accordingly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges of which he has been tried. He shall be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed. .