Honble SHARMA, J.–Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment dated march 23, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Bhilwara whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act, 1985) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; in default of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment of six months. (2). In brief, the facts of the case are that Naka Bandi was conducted under the direction of the District Opium Officer, Bhilwara on January 9, 1993 on the Bhilwara-Chittorgarh Road, around 5.30 PM a truck was checked. On being inquired, it was found that appellant was driver of the truck and one Harnek Singh was Khalasi who disclosed that opium in a polythene bag was concealed under the rear seat of the Driver. Search was conducted by Prakash Saxena and opium in polythene bag weighing 5 Kgs. was found in tool box. Two samples of 24 grams each were taken out and sealed. The truck was taken to the District Opium Officer and the investigation was conducted by P.K. Sinha. Samples were sent for chemical examination on January 11, 1993 and from the chemical report, it was revealed that seized contraband was opium. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant and the co-accused Harnek Singh. Harnek Singh on being released on bail absconded and the case was proceeded against the appellant alone. Charge under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as six witnesses. The accused pleaded innocence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No witness in defence was however examined. On hearing the final submissions learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. (3). According to learned counsel for the a no case is made out against the appellant since the sample seized, was not the same, which was analysed in the chemical report. As per the prosecution case the sample was taken in a cigarette box and got sealed, but the sample received for chemical examination at Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Neemach (M.P.) packed in plastic bag. As per the prosecution case the sample was taken in a cigarette box and got sealed, but the sample received for chemical examination at Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Neemach (M.P.) packed in plastic bag. Per contra, learned counsel for the Union of India supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is technical in nature. If any mistake appears on the chemical report, it is bonafide and should not be viewed seriously. (4). I have reflected over the rival submissions and scanned the record. A look at the letter communicated by the District Opium Officer to the General Manager, Government Opium and Alkaloid Works Undertaking, Neemach, M.P. dated January 11, 1993 (Ex.P-4) demonstrates that sample weighing 24 grams opium was sent for chemical examination. The sample along with letter was received by Rameshwar Lal, on January 11, 1993 by putting his signatures and making endorsement. Rameshwar Lal (PW.4) in his deposition stated that P.K. Sinha gave him sample of opium and he put his signatures on Exhibit P-4. He deposited the said sample in the Neemach factory. In the cross examination, Rameshwar Lal categorically stated that the sample was wrapped in a paper envelop and not in plastic envelope. Whereas perusal of Chemical Analysis Report (Ex.P-14) reveals that opium weighing 5 Kgs wrapped in a plastic bag was received at the Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Neemach, M.P. Undeniably, sample wrapped in the paper envelope weighing 24 grams was not analysed by the chemical examiner and the lurking doubt arises in the mind that the report (Ex.P-14) is not the report of the sample which was allegedly seized from the appellant and handed over by Rameshwar Lal at Neemach factory. The prosecution in my considered view committed wrong in not placing link evidence and reliable material before the court and therefore cannot be permitted to take advantage of its wrong as is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1). It was indicated as under:- ``The prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Conducting a fair trial for those who are accused of a criminal offence is the cornerstone of our democratic society. A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice. It was indicated as under:- ``The prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Conducting a fair trial for those who are accused of a criminal offence is the cornerstone of our democratic society. A conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice. Conducting a fair trial is both for the benefit of the society as well as for an accused and cannot be abandoned. While considering the aspect of fair trial, the nature of the evidence obtained and the nature of the safeguard violated are both relevant factors. (5). In Tara Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2), this Court held that discrepancy in the weight of the sample indicates that FSL, report does not relate to the sample which was recovered from the possession of the accused and benefit of doubt goes to the accused. (6). It is evident in the instant case that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance recovered from the possession of the appellant was the same that was analysed by the FSL. Serious lapse on the part of the prosecution cannot be termed as technical and ignored lightly. The evidence adduced by the prosecution thus lack in establishing charge against the appellant under section 8/18 NDPS Act. (7). For the reasons, I allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated March 23, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases, Bhilwara and acquire the appellant of the Charge under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.