Judgment S.C. Mital, J.-The appellant Harnek Singh stands convicted for the offence under Section 8 read with 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as NDPS Act) vide Judgment dated 28-2-1996 recorded by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 131/94 (182/93) and sentenced the appellant to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lac or in default to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment. 2. Theprosecution case is that SHO, Police Station, Sangariya, Shri Richhpal Singh received secret information that one person got down from the bus at Tibi Bus Stand and was proceeding on foot to Bishnoi Temple with poppy straw in his possession kept in a white bag. The secret information was reduced into writing Exhibit-P-15 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the officer superior by wifeless message Exhibit-P-17 Shri Riehhpal Singh with his staff and two motbirs reached at the spot Choutala Road Bishnoi Temple at 8.55 a.m. They saw a person with a white bag on his shoulder who tried to take turn towards the. Railway line on seeing the police party. SHO Riehhpal Singh detained the person, who gave his name as Harnek Singh son of Nihal Singh by caste Jatsikh resident of Dhoorkot (District Sangrur). The appellant Harnek Singh was informed of his right under Section 50, NDPS Act but he gave his consent to conduct the search by SHO Thus 14 Kg. poppy straw was recovered from the possession of the appellant in a white bag, which was sealed after taking two samples of 250 gms. each and marked as A and B. The samples were also scaled and a seizure memo Exhibit-P-3 was prepared in the presence of the accused and the motbirs duly signed by them. A report was lodged at the Police Station and after complete investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. The appellant, denied the charge and stated that he has been involved in a false case. After considering and evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 8/15, NDPS Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The appellant, denied the charge and stated that he has been involved in a false case. After considering and evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 8/15, NDPS Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is contended that the copy of the secret information has not been sent to the official superior in compliance of the mandatory provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 42, NDPS Act. This contention is untenable because the copy of the secret information Exhibit-P-15 has been sent through wireless message, which has been placed on record as Exhibit-P-17. I have perused Exhibit-P-17, which is a copy of Exhibit-P-iS. Therefore, the contention regarding non-compliance of Section 42 Sub-section (2) NDPS Act is rejected. 5. The next contention is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the samples were kept properly sealed and intact and these were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory in the same sealed condition as were sealed at the time of the seizure of the alleged poppy straw. It is vehemently argued that the prosecution has not examined the Malkhana Incharge to rule out the tampering of the samples. My attention was drawn to the statement of Riehhpal Singh (PW-7) who has deposed that he entrusted the scaled samples to Malkhana Incharge Chunni Ram but Chunni Rain has given contradictory version that the samples were received in the Mallthana by Han Ram. When Han Ram went on leave Chunni Ram was Malkhana Incharge on 13-9-93 and he handed over the samples to Mahendea Singh, Constable for taking the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. It is argued that the prosecution has not examined Han Ram who would have deposed that whether he received the samples and kept them in properly sealed and intact condition. It is also argued in this regard that SHO Riehhpal Singh prepared 4 copies of specimen seal memo, but it was not sent alongwith the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory and the specimen seal was prepared by Dy. S. P. Sangeriya attested by S. P., Sri Ganganagar Exhibit-P-9 which do not mention any date. It is also argued in this regard that SHO Riehhpal Singh prepared 4 copies of specimen seal memo, but it was not sent alongwith the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory and the specimen seal was prepared by Dy. S. P. Sangeriya attested by S. P., Sri Ganganagar Exhibit-P-9 which do not mention any date. The prosecution has failed to explain as to when this seal memo Exhibit-P-9 was prepared and what was the reason to prepare one more Exhibit-P-9 when already 4 copies of specimen seal memo were prepared according to SHO Riehhpal Singh at the time of seizure duly signed by the appellant and the motbirs. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that adverse inference should not be drawn against the prosecution if copy of specimen seal memo prepared on the spot was not sent because Exhibit-P-9 specimen seal impression duly prepared by the Dy. S. P. Sangeriya and attested by S.P., Sri Ganganagar has been forwarded alongwith the samples vide forwarding letter Exhibit-P-8. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the forwarding letter Exhibit-P-8, specimen seal impression Exhibit-P-9, F.S.L. Report Exhibit-P-21and specimen seal memo Exhibit-P-5 Riehhpal Singh (PW-7) has admitted in his cross examination that the specimen seal memo Exhibit-P-5 was not sent with the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. It is not clear as to why a specimen seal memo prepared with the signatures of the appellant and the Motbirs was not sent alongwith the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory and separate specimen seal impression Exhibit-P-9 was prepared by Dy. S. P., Sangeriya. Exhibit-P-5 was prepared in quadruplicate and even then one copy was not sent with the samples. The other three copies have been left in the diary of C. O, Office S. P., Office and in the file of the Public Prosecutor and the original has been submitted in the Court. Dy. S. P. Shri Han Prasad Katara is unable to state that from whom he obtained the seal in the Thana for preparing Exhibit-P-9 i.e. specimen seal impression. He has not even put any date on Exhibit-P-9. It shows that the seal used for sealing the samples has not been kept in safe custody. The seal impression has not been affixed in the entry of the Malkhana Register Exhibit-P-7. He has not even put any date on Exhibit-P-9. It shows that the seal used for sealing the samples has not been kept in safe custody. The seal impression has not been affixed in the entry of the Malkhana Register Exhibit-P-7. Richhpal Singh has deposed that he gave the samples to Chunni Ram, Malkhana Incharge but contrary to it Chunni Ram states that the samples were received in the Mallthana from Richhpal Singh by Han Ram. Han Ram is an important and material witness to complete the link evidence to establish that the samples were not tampered with but he has not been examined by the prosecution. It is a material contradiction which remains unexplained by the prosecution. In view of the above state of affairs, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish by cogent and consistent link evidence that the samples were kept intact and sealed and there was no possibility to tamper with the seals till the samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the Forensic Science Laboratory report Exhibit-P-21 looses its evidentiary value and it will be unsafe to hold the conviction of the appellant on the basis of this report. It has not been proved that the alleged article recovered from the appellant was contraband poppy straw and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and sentence dated 28-2-96 passed by the learned Special Judge, N. D. P. 5. Cases, Hanumangarh is set aside. The appellant Harnek Singh .is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 8 read with 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.