JUDGMENT - PARKAR S.S., J.:---The appellant having been convicted under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer RI for 4 months has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him on 27-7-1992 by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. 2. The appellant along with another accused was prosecuted for offence under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and alternatively under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1992 for being found in possession of 350 gms. of ganja in a plastic packet which was found near him. He was sitting along with accused No. 2 at Mulla Baba Tekdi at about 12 in the noon. When the police party attached to the Security Branch at Solapur was on patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of Fauzdar Chawdi Police Station they saw the appellant and another accused sitting with a plastic bag. On suspicion they were apprehended, panchas were called and the plastic bag and their person was searched when 350 gms. of ganja was found in the plastic bag and cash of Rs. 10 was found on the person of the appellant. Two ganja packets were found on the personal search of the accused No. 2. Sample of 50 gms. was taken from the ganja found in the plastic bag and the panchanama was prepared. 50 gms. of ganja was wrapped in a piece of paper and the label was put on it. Thereafter the contraband and the accused were brought to the Police Station and the complaint of PW 1 Bharat Jadhav, Police Constable was lodged on the basis of which crime was registered under C.R. No. 55/91. Head Constable Shinde PW 5, who was in charge of the Police Station, handed over the property to PW 4 Police Constable Manjare who entered the property at Sr. No. 53 in the property register. The entry was signed by PI Chavan. It appears that the samples were sealed on 25-4-1991 and were sent to the office of the CA on the following day. The CA reports which are at Exhibits 22 and 23 show that the sample packets contained ganja. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. No. 53 in the property register. The entry was signed by PI Chavan. It appears that the samples were sealed on 25-4-1991 and were sent to the office of the CA on the following day. The CA reports which are at Exhibits 22 and 23 show that the sample packets contained ganja. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. Before the Sessions Court charge was framed against the accused under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and alternately under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. Before the trial Court five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 is Bharat Jadhav who was a member of the raiding party and has lodged complaint (Exh. 10) after the raid and seizure of the contraband. PW 2 is Jaypal Gadage who was panch to the panchnama of seizure who had turned hostile and denied the entire case of the prosecution except admitting his signature on the panchnama and on the labels when they were shown to him at the trial. PW 3 is Yakub Shaikh, Head Constable who was a member of the raiding party. PW 4 is Pandurang Manjare, Police Constable who put the seal on the sample packet at the Police Station on 25-4-1991 and also prepared a letter dated 25-4-1991 for sending the sample packet to the CA and took the said letter and sample packets to CA on 26-4-1991. PW 5 is Tulshiram Shinde who was in-charge of the Police Station who registered the offence under C.R. No. 55 of 1991. He admits in his cross-examination that he did not inform his superior officer about the receipt of the panchnama. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was the vendor of fruits in the market and police were purchasing fruits from him without making any payment and when he demanded the payment the police took him to the Police Station and lodged this false case against him. 5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Ld. 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by his judgment and order dated 27-7-1992 convicted the appellant under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default RI for four months. 5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Ld. 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by his judgment and order dated 27-7-1992 convicted the appellant under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default RI for four months. The other accused, not before this court, was convicted under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to RI for three months. The appellant has challenged the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him in this Appeal. 6. Mr. Mane, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant raised various contentions ranging from non-compliance with sections 50, 52 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He contends that the appellant was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In my view, since it was accidental search without prior information, the provisions of the said section were not attracted. Mr. Mane secondly contended that section 52 of the Act was not complied with inasmuch as admittedly the appellant was not informed of the grounds of his arrest as one of the witnesses i.e. PW 3 who is Head Constable did admit in his cross-examination that copy of the panchanama was not given to the accused. He thirdly argued that there was non-compliance of section 57 of the Act and admittedly report of the arrest and seizure was not made to the immediate official superior which is admitted by PW 3 Police Head Constable as well as PW 5 Police Head Constable Shinde. Compliance with the requirements of sections 52 and 57 are not held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in (State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh)1, reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1872. The Apex Court has held in that case that unless prejudice is shown, the non-compliance with the said provisions i.e. sections 52 and 57 cannot be fatal to the prosecution. 7. Mr. Mane lastly submitted that the entire case depends on the seizure of the contraband in question from the possession of the appellant. The prosecution case is that the appellant was carrying a bag with him which was kept near him at the time, date and place of offence which contained 350 gms. of ganja which came to be seized from him. The prosecution case is that the appellant was carrying a bag with him which was kept near him at the time, date and place of offence which contained 350 gms. of ganja which came to be seized from him. It is, therefore, duty of the prosecution to prove not only seizure from the possession of the appellant but also to prove at the trial that the contraband in question seized from the possession of the appellant was the same which was sent for chemical analysis which according to the report of the CA was ganja and in order to ensure that the report of the CA produced in the Court pertains to the property or contraband seized from the possession of the accused, the sample must be produced and identified before the trial Court. He took me through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out from the evidence of the complainant PW 1 that after the seizure of 350 gms. of ganja from the possession of the appellant, sample of 50 gms. was taken and the same was wrapped in a piece of paper on which a label containing the signatures of Yakub Shaikh and panchas was prepared and affixed. PW 1 does not say that the sample packet was sealed with wax. He further pointed out that even the panchnama also does not mention about the sample having been sealed. This is further made clear by the evidence of PW 4 Police Constable Manjare who deposes before the Court that the wax seal was put on the sample packet in question on 25-4-1991 i.e. after about 27 days on which date letters addressed to the CA were also prepared and he took the sample packet along with the letters to the CA on 26-4-1991. This would show that the sample packets were not sealed earlier. The said point when raised before the trial Court was dealt with in para 14 of the judgment of the trial Court and was rejected observing that, “The omission of sealing sample packets on 29-3-1991 and fact of sealing them on 25-4-1991 do not prejudice the accused. It was further observed, The requirement is that the sample should not be tampered in the office of C.A. and therefore section 55 of N.D.P.S. Act requires that the sample should be sealed with seal of the Officer in charge of the Police Station. It was further observed, The requirement is that the sample should not be tampered in the office of C.A. and therefore section 55 of N.D.P.S. Act requires that the sample should be sealed with seal of the Officer in charge of the Police Station. It does not require that it should be sealed on the day on which it is received. 8. In my view the non-sealing of the sample in question on the date of seizure and leaving it only in paper cover for a period of about 27 days until 25th April, 1991, when it was sealed, does create doubt about the authenticity of the sample which was seized from the custody of the appellant. The sealing becomes important only for the purpose of ensuring that the sample which was taken from the contraband seized from the accused should be sent to the CA for analysis and unless that is ensured the CA report cannot be believed which would be the basis of the prosecution under the N.D.P.S. Act. Mr. Thakur, learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that the sealing of the sample immediately at the time of seizure is required to ensure that no tampering was done. He could not from the evidence on record point out anything which would ensure that the sample in question must not have been tampered with. When the sample which was sent for analysis to the CA itself is in doubt, no reliance can be placed on the CA report to base the conviction of the appellant. In my view, the accused are entitled to be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1992 is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. The fine if paid shall be refunded to the appellant. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. -----