JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 1510 of 2002 convicting the Appellant u/s 21(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the 'N.D.P.S. Act') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only), in default to undergo R.I. for one year. 2. Prosecution case, in brief is as follows: On 06.11.2002, P.W.3 the I.I.C., Madhupatna Police Station, Cuttack on receipt of reliable information that the Appellant was dealing with brown sugar at Manimandir square at Khannagar, proceeded to the spot along with his staff including P.W.1 S.I. of Police, P.W.2 A.S.I. of Police and P.W.7 Police Constable after requesting the Superintendent of Police over telephone to depute an Executive Magistrate or Gazetted Officer to the spot. On the way P.W.3 procured P.Ws.4 and 5 two independent witnesses. At the spot P.W.3 and his staff detained the Appellant. Soon thereafter P.W.6, the City D.S.P., Cuttack, who happened to be a Gazetted Officer, arrived there. After observing all procedural formalities prescribed under law. P.W.3 took personal search of the Appellant and recovered from his possession a polythene packet containing brown sugar Being sent for, P.W.8 the Scientific Officer of District Forensic Science Laboratory, Cuttack arrived there. Recovered contraband on weighment by P.W.8 was found to weigh 32 grams and 100 milligrams. Sample quantities drawn out of the recovered contraband by P.W.3 were kept in two packets. The recovered packet as well as sample packets were sealed. The sealed packets as well as Appellant's pant and shirt were seized by P.W.3 under seizure list P.W.4. The brass seal used by P.W.3 was kept in the zima of P.W.4 under zimanama Ext.5. P.W.3 arrested the Appellant and prepared First Information Report Ext.6 at the spot. Upon registration of the case, P.W.3 directed P.W.9 S.I. of Police to take up investigation. In course of investigation, P.W.9 examined the witnesses, effected seizures and despatched one of the sample packets for chemical examination to S.F.S.L. through S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack. Result of chemical examination as communicated under the report Ext.15 indicated the content to be diacetyl morphine (heroin). On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant. 3. Defence plea was one of denial. 4. Result of chemical examination as communicated under the report Ext.15 indicated the content to be diacetyl morphine (heroin). On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant. 3. Defence plea was one of denial. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 referred to above and also relied upon documents marked Exts.1 and 17 and material exhibits M.Os. I to V. No defence witness was examined. Neither of the independent witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.5 supported the prosecution. On the basis of evidence of the official witnesses, charge framed against the Appellant was held to have been established by the learned trial Court. 5. In assailing the impugned judgment and order, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that evidence of the official witnesses is so replete with contradictions and inconsistencies that there is no basis to hold any of them to be a firm or reliable witness on the basis of whose evidence any finding in a criminal trial can be sustained. lt was further contended that prosecution measurably failed to establish that what was examined in the S.F.S.L. was seized from the possession of the Appellant. Learned Counsel appearing for the State defended the impugned judgment and order. 6. All the witnesses on the basis of whose evidence the Appellant has been indicated had been to the spot. P.W.3 deposes to have arrived at the spot alongwith P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 9 and rounded up the Appellant who was standing near the grocery shop of one Raghunath Sahu @ Baga. P.W.3 says that he told the Appellant that he suspected him of being in possession of brown sugar and expressed his intention to search him. At that point of time, P.W.6, the City D.S.P. arrived at the spot. In the F.I.R. the informant-P.W.3 mentioned that before expressing his intention to search the Appellant, he ascertained the identity of the Appellant from him. P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 9 do not say that P.W.3 expressed his intention to search the Appellant before arrival of P.W.6 P.W.3 further testifies that in presence of P.W.6, he asked the Appellant as to whether he would like to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Executive Magistrate and the Appellant agreed to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer. P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 9 support P.W.3 in this regard. P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 9 support P.W.3 in this regard. However, P.W.1 says that the Appellant "gave his option to be searched in presence of Executive Officer". P.W.3 as well as P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 7 depose that polythene packet containing brown sugar was recovered from the Appellant's right side pant pocket upon search by P.W.3 before arrival of P.W.8 the Scientific Officer. P.W.8 also says that on his arrival at the spot P.W.3 produced one polythene pocket containing some brown sugar like substance which he weighed and from which he drew samples of 5 gms. each. However, in course of his cross-examination, P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, says that by the time P.W.8, the Scientific Officer reached at the spot the brown sugar in question was with the Appellant. P.W.3 brought "packets" from the Appellant after P.W.8 reached there. P.W.3 says that he himself drew two samples of 5 gms. each from the bulk of the brown sugar recovered from the Appellant. However, according to P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 as well as P.W.8 himself, sample quantities of brown sugar were drawn from the recovered packet by P.W.8, the Scientific Officer. F.I.R. is altogether silent as to whether it was P.W.3 or P.W.8 who took weighment of and drew samples from the recovered brown sugar. P.W.3 deposes that after seizure of recovered contraband, sample packets and Appellant's pant and shirt under seizure list Ext.4, he packed and sealed the brown sugar in the recovered polythene packet and sample packets by using his brass seal. P.W.3 deposes to have put the specimen impression of the brass seal Ext.4/1 on seizure list Ext.4 and to have kept the brass seal with P.W.5 on execution of Zimanama Ext.5. In the F.I.R. Ext.6 it has been mentioned that P.W.3 packed and sealed the recovered brown sugar as well as the sample packets first, and thereafter, prepared seizure list Ext.4. P.W.5 does not depose to have kept any brass seal in his Zima. P.W.3 says that he drew up plain paper F.I.R. Ext.6 and arrested the accused at the spot. Thereafter, he brought the accused to the police station alongwith seized articles, registered the case, drew up formal F.I.R., and directed P.W.9 to take up investigation. However, P.W.9 himself deposes that at the spot itself P.W.3 directed him to take up investigation, and accordingly, he took up investigation. Thereafter, he brought the accused to the police station alongwith seized articles, registered the case, drew up formal F.I.R., and directed P.W.9 to take up investigation. However, P.W.9 himself deposes that at the spot itself P.W.3 directed him to take up investigation, and accordingly, he took up investigation. In his cross-examination it is categorically deposed by P.W.9 that at the spot itself he was directed by P.W.3 to take up investigation and entrusted with the seized articles, the Appellant and the documents, and that all the police officers returned to the police station together at about 4.00 P.M. P.W.3, who deposes to have recovered brown sugar from the Appellant, says in his cross-examination that heroin looks white whereas brown sugar looks brown in colour. P.W.1 says in his cross-examination that brown sugar recovered from the Appellant was white in colour. In the chemical examination report-Ext.15 it has been mentioned that sample packet received in S.F.S.L. contained 5 gms of 'grayish brown coloured powder substance'. P.W.2, a police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector says that P.W.9 under seizure list Ext.1 seized the mal items before those were kept in the police mal khana. Then he adds that a separate seizure list Ext.2 was prepared after seizure of the mal item by P.W.9, and he identifies his signatures Exts.1/1 and 2/1. Thus, P.W.2 testifies regarding seizure of articles recovered from the Appellant and preparation of seizure lists on three occasions - once by P.W.3 and twice by P.W.9. 7. Apart from the above inconsistencies, it is also found that the official witnesses including P.W.6 the City D.S.P. tried to evade answering a number of questions put to them in course of cross-examination. P.W.6 says that he does not remember from which place he proceeded to the spot, or whether it was given in writing to the Appellant that he had right to be searched in presence of an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, or that the Appellant exercised his right in writing, or regarding colour of the polythene packet, or as to how samples were packed, or if on the Zimanama specimen impression of seal was given, or who was the Investigating Officer in the case. P.W.6 also expressed his inability to say how much time after he reached the spot P.W.8 the Scientific Officer reached there, or who prepared the Zimanama. P.W.6 also expressed his inability to say how much time after he reached the spot P.W.8 the Scientific Officer reached there, or who prepared the Zimanama. Similarly, P.W.1 says that he does not remember if there were other shops near the spot and he expressed his inability to say if some customers were present in the shop of Raghunath Sahu. P.W.2 says that he does not remember if by the time they reached at the spot, shop keeper Raghunath Sahu was present in his shop, or what kind of weighing instrument was used by P.W.8, or if P.W.8 put his brass seal impression on the seized packet, or as to whether the Zimanama was written by P.W.3, or if the witnesses had signed on the Zimanama. 8. Such being the state and nature of evidence adduced by police officers and scientific officer, there is no scope to hold that any of the witnesses is so reliable that his evidence can be safely based to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that heroin or brown sugar was recovered from the possession of the Appellant, as alleged. The inconsistencies and contradictions render the veracity of the assertion of their presence doubtful. 9. As regards the second contention, it is deposed by P.W.9 that he despatched one of the samples collected by P.W.3 to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar through S.D.J.M. (S); Cuttack under forwarding report Ext.14. Admittedly, at the time of production of the sample packet before the learned S.D.J.M., the brass seal used for sealing at the spot was not produced for comparison. P.W.3 states to have put the specimen impression of the brass seal on the seizure list. However, materials on record do not indicate that seizure list was produced in Court alongwith sample packet which was sent for chemical examination to enable comparison of specimen impression on the seizure list with the seal on the sample packet. The relevant portion of order dated 07.11.2002 reads: xxxx Perused the forwarding report, 161 statement, zimanama and arrest memo. The accused is remanded to j.c. till 21.11.2002 awaiting f.f. The I.O. also produced the exhibits i.e. one sealed packet marked as Ext. 'A/1. The said sealed packet is kept in another packet along with a copy of forwarding letter having specimen seal and signature of this Court. The accused is remanded to j.c. till 21.11.2002 awaiting f.f. The I.O. also produced the exhibits i.e. one sealed packet marked as Ext. 'A/1. The said sealed packet is kept in another packet along with a copy of forwarding letter having specimen seal and signature of this Court. Another copy of forwarding letter having specimen seal and signature of this Court is kept in an envelope and the envelope and the packet containing sample exhibit marked as 'A/1 are sealed properly. The sealed sample exhibit packet and the sealed envelope are handed over to the I.O. with a direction to deposit the same at S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar immediately. The I.O. is further directed to deposit the rest seized article in the Sessions malkhana immediately. Since the case is exclusively triable by the Special Court, the case record is submitted to the Court of Special Judge-Cum-Sessions Judge, Cuttack for favour of further orders. Thus, it is evident that Ext.14 forwarding letter of S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack bearing specimen impression of Court seal alongwith sample packet produced by P.W.9 were forwarded in another packet under Court seal. There is no indication anywhere that impression of brass seal used for sealing the sample packets by P.W.3 was made available to either the S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack or the chemical examiner of S.F.S.L. for comparison. 10. It is also curious to observe that P.W.3 identifies two sample packets in course of his deposition and says: M.Os II and III are the samples I had drawn from the bulk of the brown sugar. Identification of M.Os. II and III to be the sample packets prepared at the spot renders the assertion of P.W.9 to have got one of the samples chemically examined at S.F.S.L. vulnerable. It is for the prosecution to establish and cover the entire path by adducing cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence that the seized articles were properly sealed and there was no chance of tampering with the packets during the retention of those packets at the police station and the same was the very articles produced before the Magistrate for sending them to the Chemical Examiner. Prosecution has to establish proper sealing and safe custody of the seized articles so that articles examined in the Laboratory shall be relatable to the article seized. Prosecution has to establish proper sealing and safe custody of the seized articles so that articles examined in the Laboratory shall be relatable to the article seized. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the seized article was sent for chemical analysis by adducing unimpeachable evidence and no scope for suspicion should be left in the matter. Criminal trial does not admit any gap or missing link. In this connection, decisions in Valsala v. State of Kerala (1993) 6 OCR (SC) 457, Sinic Patricia v. State (1994) 7 OCR 277 and Bhimasen Sahoo v. State of Orissa (1997) 12 OCR 443 may be referred to. 11. In view of above discussion, there is absolutely no scope to hold that the prosecution has established the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed in G.R. Case No. 1510 of 2002 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack is set aside. The Appellant acquitted of the charge framed against him. It was stated that the Appellant is in custody. If that be so, he be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. Final Result : Allowed