JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---This appeal is filed by the appellants who were convicted under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and also under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 2.As per the prosecution case about 18 kg. of ganja was seized from the appellants as a chance recovery on 10-8-1989. On that date, complainant Head Constable Ambadas Wankhede P.W. 3 attached to City Police Station Barsi was assigned duty at Bhosale Chowk at Barsi. It was the time of Ganapati and Moharam festival and, therefore, most of the policemen were doing patrolling duty in the town. The other police officers including A.S.I. Maruti and Head Constables and Police Constables had also arrived at the said place at about 12 in the night. At about 12.15 in the night appellants were seen hurriedly proceeding by Arangaon road towards railway station which gave rise to the suspicion in the mind of the complainant and other policemen. Appellants were, therefore, asked to stop. The appellant No. 1 was carrying leather bag while appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were carrying bundles of plastic bags smelling of ganja and therefore panchas were called and the appellants were asked about their names and their place of residence. It was disclosed that they were from Kushthadham, Latur. The appellants were then searched. On search, the appellant No. 1 was found carrying leather bag containing 3 kg. of ganja. The appellant No. 2 was found carrying 10 kg. of ganja and appellant No. 3 was found carrying 5 kg. of ganja. The sample of 100 gms. was taken from each of the bag and the accused and muddemal were brought to the City Police Station, Barsi. Head Constable Wankhede P.W. 3 lodged his complaint and offence was registered under Crime No. 80 of 1989 under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The sample was sent to the C.A. and the report of the C.A. disclosed that the sample contained ganja. 3.Before the Sessions Court charge was framed against the appellants under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The complainant, panchas and other witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the C.A. report Exhibit 21 was produced. The defence of the appellants was of denial. 3.Before the Sessions Court charge was framed against the appellants under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The complainant, panchas and other witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and the C.A. report Exhibit 21 was produced. The defence of the appellants was of denial. 4.After going through the evidence on record, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by his judgment and order dated 5-3-1993 convicted the appellants under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. All the appellants were sentenced to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to R.I. for three months under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. However, no separate sentence was recorded under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act. The said order is impugned in this appeal by all the accused. 5.Mr. Mane, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, after taking me through the evidence of the witnesses, panchanama and C.A. report contended, inter alia, that though as per the evidence of complainant P.W. 3 Wankhede three samples of 100 gms. were taken from the muddemal seized from all the three appellants, the panchanama Exhibit 12 mentions otherwise. As per the seizure panchanama only one sample of 100 gms. was prepared by taking little ganja from each of the three bags seized from the three appellants. As per the C.A. report Exhibit 21 only one packet was received by the office for the purpose of analysis and the quantity of the said sample packet was 61 gms. and not 100 gms. as asserted by the complainant and the other witnesses and mentioned in the panchanama. Thus, there is discrepancy about the quantity of sample taken at the time of seizure and sent to the office of C.A. There is also no mention that the sample was sealed with wax seal but there is only mention about the sample being sealed with paper seal. The more serious lacuna in the prosecution case appears to be about taking only one sample from three bags and sending it to the C.A. for analysis and, therefore, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty as to which of the appellants was carrying ganja. The more serious lacuna in the prosecution case appears to be about taking only one sample from three bags and sending it to the C.A. for analysis and, therefore, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty as to which of the appellants was carrying ganja. When the muddemal was seized from three persons carrying three separate bags, three different samples ought to have been taken and sent to C.A. which would have ruled out the possibility of any of the appellants carrying article other than ganja. 6.In the aforesaid circumstances the doubt is as to whether all the appellants were carrying ganja or only one or two of them and if so which of the accused was carrying ganja. Therefore, the appellants have to be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. 7.In the result, I allow this appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 130/91 on 5-3-1993 against the appellants under the provisions of section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The appellants are acquitted and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed. -----