P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the accused in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1992 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore is bound to succeed on a short point which shall be quoted below. Therefore, a detailed documentation of the facts, evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court, in respect of the entire case is not required to be reflected in this judgment. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 27-12-1991, at about 8. 20 P. M. P. W. No. 7 alongwith police staff which includes P. Ws. 4 and 5, were patrolling in the locality apprehend the appellant alongwith his brother and recovered a gunny bag from the appellant allegedly containing one kilo and fifty grams of ganja. Independent witnesses present there namely P. Ws. 1 to 3 also helped the police party in apprehending the accused and witnessing the seizure. It is the admitted position on record that the accused was produced in the court of S. D. J. M. Jeypore on 28-12-1991, but the seized articles were not produced. However, on 20th January. 1992 the P. W. No. 7 produced a packet of ganja said to be sample drawn from the ganja seized from the possession of the accused and learned S. D J. M. forwarded the same to the Chemical Examiner to the Government of Orissa. State Central Research Laboratory. Bhubaneswar for analysis and opinion. It is also borne out from the evidence that the said articles was tested and as. per the opinion of the Chemical Examiner Ext. 3 was prima facie found to be ganja. ( 3 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge rejected the contention of the appellant that there is no acceptable evidence to show or suggest that the sample sent for examination by the Chemical Examiner was drawn from the article seized from the accused, In that respect relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 5 and 7 the trial Court accepted the prosecution version and recorded that appellant was in illegal possession of ganja and accordingly convicted him under Section 20 (b) (i) and the N. D. P. S. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 1,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant during the course of argument states that the appellant has already served the substantive sentence and the realisation of fine has been stayed by this Court. ( 5 ) DURING the course of hearing learned counsel for the appellant reading out the relevant facts and the evidence relating to drawing up the sample and sending the same for chemical examination argues that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any nexus between the article seized and the sample sent for chemical analysis and in that respect the finding of learned Additional Sessions Judge is faulty and liable to be set aside. He further argues that if that part of the prosecution case is disbelieved then there is nothing on record. to prove that appellant was found in possession of away so as to constitute the offence under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State in view of the aforesaid argument of the appellant was permitted to go through the case diary as well as the original L. C. R and after perusal of the same be fairly concedes that nothing has been reflected in the case diary seizure list or the lower court record of the S. D. J. M. that sample was drawn from the bag which was seized from the appellant. He, however, argues that evidence of P. Ws. 4. 5 and 7 indicates that sample was drawn from the seized bag (M. O. I. .) and that part of the evidence being credible was relied upon by the trial court to accept the prosecution version. ( 7 ) THE crux of the matter thus hinges on reliability and acceptability of the evidence of P. Ws. 4. 5 and 7 regarding proving nexus between the sample sent for chemical analysis and the article in M. O. I. so as to maintain the order of conviction. P. W. 4 in his evidence has stated that the Officerincharge took out 50 grams of garya from the seized garya as sample and kept in a packet and sealed the same. He also sealed the M. O. I. . at the spot. T It may be noted here that M. O. I. is the bag which was seized from the appellant. He also sealed the M. O. I. . at the spot. T It may be noted here that M. O. I. is the bag which was seized from the appellant. P. W. No. 5 has stated in his evidence that The Officer incharge kept 0. 50 grams of sample Ganja in a separate packet after taking the same from the seized Garya and sealed the same and the bag containing ganja. P. W. No. 7 in his deposition has stated that I took some sample away from the seized away and kept it in a separate sealed packet. I also sealed the plastic bag with ganja. He has further stated on my prayer the S. D. J. M. Jeypore sent the sample ganja for Chemical Examination vide this forwarding letter No. 150 dated 20th January. 1992 vide Ext. 3. At the stage of cross-examination his evidence is more revealing when he has stated that:6. 1 have not mentioned in the seizure list or in the plain paper F. I. R to have taken sample ganja. from the seized ganja. I have not mentioned it in the case diary. To Court: I have not mentioned any where regarding taking of sample. But 1 had taken sample from the seized ganja in presence of witnesses and my staff. 7. I took sample of about 10 grams of ganja. The bag contained Kg. 1. 50 grams of ganja minus sample. I produced sample packet of ganja before the S. D. J. M. Jeypore on 20-1- 1992. In the forwarding letter Ext. 2 the quantity of the sample ganja is not stated so also in the report of the Chemical examiner Le. Ext. 3. In their statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. none of the witnesses stated about collection of sample at the spot and preservation of the same in separate packet. ( 8 ) LEARNED Addi. Sessions Judge found the evidence of P. Ws. 4. 5 and 7 to be discrepant relating to the quantity kept in the sample bag but consider the same as non-consequential. This Court finds that learned Addi. ( 8 ) LEARNED Addi. Sessions Judge found the evidence of P. Ws. 4. 5 and 7 to be discrepant relating to the quantity kept in the sample bag but consider the same as non-consequential. This Court finds that learned Addi. Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate gravity of the said contradiction and the glaring lacuna in the prosecution evidence and particularly the conduct of the Investigating Officer P. W. No. 7 in conducting the investigation in a half hearted and halfazard manner and passed a very casual remark that the above noted inconsistency in the evidence of P. Ws. 4. 5 and 7 is non-consequential. It true that offences under the N. D. P. S. Act are serious offences and flimsy plea should not stand on the way to grant substantial justice for punishing the wrong doers. At the same time when the punishment is severe the Investigating Agency as well as the prosecuting Agency should not be careless so as to allow technical flaws or factual inaccuracy to interfere with imparting substantial justice. Precisely the lacuna from the side of the investigation and prosecution has resulted in not connecting the sample with the substance in M. O. I. leading to entertaining a doubt if M. O. I. . contains ganja. Above quoted evidence of P. W. 7 clearly shows that nothing was reflected in the F. I. R. seizure list OF the case diary that sample was drawn from M. O. 1 and kept in a separate sealed packet. P. Ws. 4 and 5 had no occasion to see and identify the sample packet while deposing in Court. Thus even if their evidence shall be presumed to be correct regarding drawing samples the gap in evidence still remains to connect the packet which was sent for analysis with the sample which was said to be drawn at the spot. P. W. No. 7 has not explained as to why he did not produce the sample packet while producing the accused before S. D. J. M. Jeypore. The worst part in that process is that there is nothing on the record or the forwarding letter Ext. 3 that learned S. D. J. M. had verified the sample packet and the seal thereof and was satisfied about proper sealing on that packet. The worst part in that process is that there is nothing on the record or the forwarding letter Ext. 3 that learned S. D. J. M. had verified the sample packet and the seal thereof and was satisfied about proper sealing on that packet. All the above circumstances should have been properly visualized and appreciated whilelearned Additional Sessions Judge was considering the contention of the appellant that there was no nexus between the packet sent to the chemical examiner and the so called sample drawn from M. O. I. . In other words all the above glaring circumstances are sufficient to entertain a doubt that prosecution has not been able to show that sample drawn from M. O. I. was sent for chemical analysis. Once that part of the prosecution evidence is doubtful then there is no other evidence to prove that the substance kept in M. O. I is ganja and therefore that results in failure of the prosecution to prove that ganja was possessed by appellants constituting an offence under Section 20 (b) (i) N. D. P. S. Act. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that M. O. I. contains of ganja the benefit out of the same is granted to accused and accordingly he is acquitted of the charge and the impugned conviction order is set aside. The appeal is thus allowed. Appeal allowed. .