JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. In this appeal appellant makes a grievance against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions trial No. 9-S/7 of 2001, dated 31.10.2001. By means of impugned judgment, appellant after he was found guilty of having committed offences under Section 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act"), was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay fine of Rs. One lakh under Section 21 of the Act. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo additional terms of rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months. Similar sentence has been imposed upon him under Section 22 of the Act. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. It has also been ordered that the period of sentence already under gone by the appellant during investigation, inquiry and trial of the case shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed upon him as per provisions of Section 428 Cr. P C. 2. Prosecution case as set up during he course of trial against the appellant was that on 9.1.2001, at about 4 PM in the area, of Ridge, he was found in possession of manufactured drugs and preparations, namely, Nitrazepam IP, 86 tablets Diazepam IP, 20 tablets Alprazolam IP, 10 (0.25) tablets, Alparazolam IP 12 tablets (0.25), Capsules Spasmoproxyvon 37, four bottles of phensedyl cough liquid, 100 ml. Each and two bottles of corex cough syrup 100 ml each in contravention of S.O. No. 824 (E) issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt, of India under the Act and the appellant was charged under Section 21 of the Act. In addition to this, he was further charged under Section 22 of the Act for being in possession of psychotropic substances, Nitrazepam (36 tablets): Diazepam (10 tablets): Alprazolam (8 tablets): Spasmoproxyvon (16 capsules) Phenedyle cough liquids (two bottles) and corex (one bottle). These he also possessed in violation of the aforesaid S O. issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt of India. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 3. After recording prosecution evidence, appellant was found guilty and sentenced as above. 4. These he also possessed in violation of the aforesaid S O. issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt of India. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. 3. After recording prosecution evidence, appellant was found guilty and sentenced as above. 4. Further case of the prosecution is that on the aforesaid date and time at a place known as "Takka bench" in the area of Ridge. SI Ram Lai (PW-6) of State C.I.D. was on patrol duty alongwith Sarvind Rattan (PV\M) and Constable Dharamvir (FW-5). Another Police Constable Ram Chand was also with them. 5. According to PWs 4 to 6, appellant was found present standing near Takka Bench on the road leading to Jakhu temple. On noticing the police party, he tried to run on the road leading to Jakhu Temple. He was nabbed by PWs 4 and 5 when PW-6 also reached here. Meanwhile, one Satish Kumar, Drug Inspector and Ram Balbh also reached there. Vide Ext. PJ personal search was given by PW-6 and other police officials accompanying him. This search was given in the presence of aforesaid Drug Inspector and Pankaj Sharma (PW-8) This witness has turned hostile and thus did not support the case of the prosecution in court. There after personal search of the appellant was conducted and he was found holding a Jhola (bag) having strap of slati-asmani colour It was check and was matmela. During search, aforesaid psychotropic substances were recovered. According to prosecution case, the Drug Inspector present there identified these recovered materials as drugs. 6. Out of the recovered contraband, samples were drawn as required under the Act and were sealed in one parcel, whereas remainder quantity was put into the same bag. This was also sealed with the seal bearing letter "A". Specimen of the seal was taken separately on two pieces of cloth. Recovery Memo Ext. PK was prepared at the spot. Fard Jama Talashi of the appellant was also prepared vide ext. PL. Ruqua Ext PG was sent to the police Station by PW-6 for registration of the case through PW-5, Constable Dharamvir. On its basis F.I.R registered by PW-3, ASI Brahm Dev vide Ext. PH Two parcels were also handed over to Gopal Singh which were produced before S.H.O. Sadar, Shimla, PW-1 Jagdish Sharma. PL. Ruqua Ext PG was sent to the police Station by PW-6 for registration of the case through PW-5, Constable Dharamvir. On its basis F.I.R registered by PW-3, ASI Brahm Dev vide Ext. PH Two parcels were also handed over to Gopal Singh which were produced before S.H.O. Sadar, Shimla, PW-1 Jagdish Sharma. These were resealed by SHO, Sadar, Shimla and were kept in safe custody at the Malkhana 7. On 11.1.2001, as per prosecution, a packet was handed over to lady Constable Sunita for being delivered at C.T.L. Kandaghat, alongwith specimen seal bearing letter "A" on the cloth. According to her, she delivered the parcel and seal impression at C.T.L.Kandaghat. Till and so long, the packet remained with her, it was not tampered and was in tact 8. PWs 4 to 6, the police officials have supported the prosecution case. They have narrated how they were on patrol duty and in what manner the appellant tried to run towards Jakhu at the place known as Takka Bench, on seeing the police. Further how he was nabbed by PWs 4 and. 5. Then what followed (has briefly been noted hereinabove). 9. So far PW-8 is concerned, he is the only independent witness examined and is a signatory to Ext. PJ as well as Ext. PN. He has not supported the prosecution case at ail noted above. 10. After receipt of the reports from C.T.L.Kandaghat, Exts. PA to PE., appellant was challenged and was found guilty as aforesaid. 11. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Shri M.L. Brakta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that assuming everything against his client in this case, still prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant. According to him, independent witness PW-8 Pankaj Sharma has not supported the case of the prosecution. Other two independent witnesses namely Satish Chand, Drug inspector and Ram Balabh were not examined. Seal after sealing the packets at the spots per PW-6, was handed over to the said Drug Inspector. Thus, according to Mr. Brakta, possibility of the samples having been tampered with cannot be completely ruled out. Further, according to him, entire chain of circumstances in this case is not complete By referring to Ext. PA to PE, reports of the C.T.L. Kandaghat, Mr. Thus, according to Mr. Brakta, possibility of the samples having been tampered with cannot be completely ruled out. Further, according to him, entire chain of circumstances in this case is not complete By referring to Ext. PA to PE, reports of the C.T.L. Kandaghat, Mr. Brakta pointed out that no reliance can be placed on these reports so as to hold the appellant guilty of having been in possession of the psychotropic substances, that too in violation of the order of the Government of India referred to in the preceding paras. His submission that nothing was recovered from his client, much-less what is alleged by the prosecution witnesses. 12. All these pleas have been contested by Mr. Naint, learned Deputy Advocate General. He pointed out that non-examination of the Drug Inspector, Ram Balabh and non supporting of prosecution version by PW-8 Pankaj Sharma, does not affect the merits of this case, as well as conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. According to him, case of the prosecution is otherwise proved to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt by other oral and documentary evidence. As such this appeal deserves to be dismissed and conviction as well as sentence imposed by the trial Court upheld. 13. When a reference is made to Exts. P-A to P-E, it is evident that these Narcotic Control Bureau Forms are required to be sent to the testing laboratory while forwarding the sample for analysis. Those are required to be filled in so far its Section 1 is concerned. In this behalf, it may be noted that Exts. P-A and P-C do not bear either the name or the signature of the forwarding officer. A further reference to these five forms clearly suggests, that seals with which packet was sealed while forwarding it to CTL is not there on any of these forms. Those exhibits do not even indicate the date when those were dispatched. Even otherwise in Section 1, there is nothing to suggest to when the parcel was dispatched. No doubt in the report attached with Narcotic Control Bureau Forms in their Section 11, the date of receipt is shown as 11-1-2000. On the reports attached to these exhibits P-A to P-E, there is no mention, much-less reference to the seals which were scribed on the sample as received in the laboratory. 14. A reference to section 1 of Exts. On the reports attached to these exhibits P-A to P-E, there is no mention, much-less reference to the seals which were scribed on the sample as received in the laboratory. 14. A reference to section 1 of Exts. P-A to P-E indicates that at its Serial No. 5 date and drawl and dispatch of the sample is to be mentioned. It is blank. Similarly, its Serial Nos. 6(b) and 8 are also blank. And as already observed, thee is no mention of packet being sealed in Narcotic Control Bureau Section 11,1. e report furnished by CTL Kandaghat. 15. These safeguards have been provided in law keeping in view the minimum prescribed sentence which is ten years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for offences under the Act, as it was on the date of commission of the offence. This is a stringent provision of law because on guilt being established, Court has no discretion, but to impose minimum punishment as well as fine. Therefore, strict compliance has to be ensured. After receipt of sample and before it is opened, seals if found on it found to be intact, this fact is to be noted down and certified by the person opening the packet for conducting analysis in the laboratory. Purpose behind this exercise is to ensure that there is not tampering with the sample forwarded to the laboratory for analysis. 16. Another fact is that admittedly one parcel was sent to the CTL for analysis as per PW-2. Then how five reports are there. 17. When learned Deputy Advocate General was confronted with the above situation, he could not explain the matter. Though he submitted that even if Ext. P-A and P-C both are excluded , other documents are duly filed in, and thus on the basis of Exts. P-B, P-D and P-E conviction of the appellant needs to be upheld. This arguments is being noted to be rejected. Reason being that these reports under Section 293 of the Cr. P.C. as per se admissible. Therefore, unless those were complete as per law, those cannot be looked into. 18. With view to enable this Court to read Ext. P-A to P-E in evidence, learned Deputy Advocate General was not able to satisfy as to how those can be looked into at all in the absence of aforesaid safeguards having been observed. Therefore, unless those were complete as per law, those cannot be looked into. 18. With view to enable this Court to read Ext. P-A to P-E in evidence, learned Deputy Advocate General was not able to satisfy as to how those can be looked into at all in the absence of aforesaid safeguards having been observed. In this behalf, again when a reference is made to the statement of PW-1 Jagdish Sharma, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, as well as PWs, 2 and 6, we are satisfied that there is no link evidence so as to establish that narcotic substances alleged to have been recovered from the appellant are in any manner connected with the reports of CTL Kandaghat so as to uphold the conviction of the appellant. It hardly needs to be reiterated that benefit of doubt invariably has to go to an accused like appellant. 19. Thus because of the view that we have taken regarding Exts. P-A to P-E, we feel that they cannot be looked into for any purpose as legally accept- able reports under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And as a consequence of this, it is clear that this is a case of no evidence, so as to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 21 and 22 of the Act. This important and vital link in the chain of circumstances is missing in this case to accept the plea of the prosecution.. That being so, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 20. What falls from this is that for want of evidence to show that the recovered articles were psychotropic substances of which appellant was found to be in possession within the meaning of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, having not been proved, this appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground alone and it is ordered accordingly and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other case.