JUDGMENT 1. - Respondent-accused Sona Singh was prosecuted before Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh for offence under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Charge was framed by the learned Magistrate against him on 1.8.78. He denied his indictment and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 4 witnesses in support of his defence. Accused respondent was ^examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties, acquitted the respondent. It is assailed by the Appellant State. 2. In brief, case of the prosecution is that Ashok Kumar (PW/4) Excise Inspector was on patrolling duty on 8.8.77. He received information from a mukhbir that the respondent accused was keeping illicit liquor. He searched the bada of the respondent-accused and recovered illicit liquor, sample of which was taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Report of Chemical Examiner is available on record which shows that the samples which were four in number contained (a) 44.64 (b) 44.64 (c) 44.64 (d) 44.64 under-proof Ethyl Alcohol. The respondent was prosecuted, tried and acquitted as stated above. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate committed error in acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was a delay in examination of the sample by the Chemical Examiner. He submitted that the acquittal may be converted into conviction. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Magistrate acquitted the respondent because of extraordinary delay in examination of sample. 4. I have gone through the record very carefully. It is Ashok Kumar (PW/4) who searched Bada of the respondent and seized bottles of liquor on 6.8.77. But he has not stated even a single word as to where did he keep the samples after taking them in his possession. He simply stated that the sample was sent through Rewant Das guard to the Chemical Examiner. Thus, the link to evidence is missing. 5. Rewant Das (PW 2) stated that he took the sample of 10 different cases to the Chemical Examiner in one packet. He obtained receipt Ex.P/2 from the Chemical Examiner. Ex.P/2 is the letter alongwith which samples were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner. It is dated 2.11.77 and the samples were deposited with the Chief Public Analyist on 7.11.77. There is no evidence on record as to where samples remained from 6.8.77 to 2.11.77 and then from 2.11.77 to 7.11.77. He obtained receipt Ex.P/2 from the Chemical Examiner. Ex.P/2 is the letter alongwith which samples were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner. It is dated 2.11.77 and the samples were deposited with the Chief Public Analyist on 7.11.77. There is no evidence on record as to where samples remained from 6.8.77 to 2.11.77 and then from 2.11.77 to 7.11.77. Rewant Das (PW/2) does not tell as to where the samples were lying after they were handed over to him. He does not tell even the date on which obtained samples from Inspector. 6. In view of this evidence, the prosecution has not been able to explain that the samples remained intact during this period. In a latest Supreme Court Judgment in Mohd. Aman & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan 1997(10) SCC 44 finger prints and foot prints of the accused were taken. Finger prints were recovered from the house of the deceased. Prosecution failed to prove that the seized articles could not be tampered with. The seized articles were kept in police station without any justifiable reason and in such a circumstance, the evidence was held to be of no value to the prosecution. 7. In these circumstances, I am of the view that learned Magistrate has not committed any error in acquitting the accused-respondent. There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******