JUDGMENT 1. - All these three appeals arise from the judgment dated 28.3.2001 of the learned Special Judge NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar, therefore, I propose to dispose off all these appeals by a common judgment. 2. The appellants, three in number, have assailed the finding of learned Special Judge rendered vide judgment dated 28.3.2001, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 8/15 of NDPS Act To suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default to further suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 8/29 of NDPS Act To suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default to further suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. On 12.9.1995 around 7.00 a.m., Station House Officer, Madanlal received an information by Mukhbir to the effect that one truck was coming from the side of Bikaner containing bags of post doda. The information was got entered and C.O. telephonically informed the SHO. The SHO proceeded towards the side alongwith witnesses, in the meanwhile, Dy.S.P. Suratgarh also came over there around 10.00 a.m. Commander Jeep bearing No. MP-04-F-1362 driven by Raju arrived. In the front seat, Prabhu Dayal and Mahesh Singh were sitting. Behind the Jeep, truck No. RJO-2522 driven by one Durgalal was there and Shyamlal alongwith Kailash was sitting. Jeep and truck were got stopped, search was conducted and during the search of the truck 201 bags of doda post were recovered. Samples were taken, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charges u/ss. 8/15 & 8/29 of the Act were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. In the explanation u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence, however was examined. Learned trial Judge, on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scrutinised the material on record. 5. The main contention advanced before me by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the articles, since the time they were seized and till they reached to FSL, remained intact and they were not tempered with. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scrutinised the material on record. 5. The main contention advanced before me by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the articles, since the time they were seized and till they reached to FSL, remained intact and they were not tempered with. It is further submitted that from the perusal of FSL report it is clear that all the samples marked ABCD were shown but a bare perusal of recovery memo would reveal that no mark were put on the bags at the time of seizure, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the samples which were seized from the appellants were the same samples which reached to the FSL. As this legal question goes to the root of the matter, the appellants deserves to be acquitted on this ground alone. In support of his submission, learned counsel place reliance on Tara Singh v. State & Ors., 1996 RCD 62 . 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that this question as dealt in great detail by the learned trial Judge and this technical point should be ignored. 7. A perusal of recovery memo Ex.P/3 would demonstrate that marks ABCD were not put on the samples drawn from the recovered articles allegedly seized from the possession of the appellants and this fact was admitted by Mandan Lal (PW-24) who deposed that in the Seizure Memo Ex.P/3 no marks of seal did appear. Learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment observed that in not putting the seal on Seizure Memo Ex.P/3 was a bona fide mistake on the part of Seizure Officer and argument advanced in this regard was lightly ignored. 8. FSL Report Ex.P/38 goes to demonstrate that bags marked ABCD were received at the FSL and on chemical examination of the said bags water extract of the samples contained in each of the bags gave positive test for the presence of chief constituent of the opium. 9. The prosecution thus failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the samples that were sent to FSL for the purpose of analyses were not the same samples which were recovered from the possession of the appellants. Ratio indicated in Tara Singh v. State (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 9. The prosecution thus failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the samples that were sent to FSL for the purpose of analyses were not the same samples which were recovered from the possession of the appellants. Ratio indicated in Tara Singh v. State (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. I do not agree with the observations of the learned trial Judge that in not putting the seal on the memo Ex.P/3, the Seizure Officer only committed bona fide mistake. The act of Seizure Officer was a deliberate attempt to flout the safeguard provided under the Act to all accused. In view of this, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges u/s. 8/15 of the Act against the appellants. 10. For these reasons, the appeals stand allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge stands set aside and the appellants-Shyamlal, 'Durgalal and Kailash are acquitted of the charges u/ss. 8/15 & 8/29 of the Act. All the three appellants, who are in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******