JUDGMENT : 1. - The accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2004 passed by Special Court (N.D.P.S. Cases), Ajmer in Criminal Case No.24/ 2003 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 8/18 (c) and Section 8/20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 8/18(c) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 years with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was charge sheeted for the offences under Section 8/18(c) and Section 8/20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act on the premise that on 25.05.2003 when a house owned and possessed by the appellant was searched by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, (Probationer I.P.S. Officer) Police Circle, Kekri (District Ajmer) in the presence of two independent witnesses and the appellant himself, narcotic drug opium weighing 1.250 Kg., narcotic drug Charas weighing 5.250 Kg. and narcotic drug Ganja weighing 79.650 Kg. was recovered from the possession of the appellant without any valid licence or permit. F.I.R. No.109/2003 for the offence under Section 8/18 and 8/20 of the Act was registered in this regard at Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer. To prove the charges, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant denied the allegations and the evidence of the prosecution and specifically stated that the house, from which the alleged recovery has been made, belongs to one "Shri Chand Khan son of Shri Kalu Khan whereas his house is a single story building bearing No.124. It was also stated by him that he has been falsely involved in this case as the police personnel demands his jeep from time to time. In his defence the appellant produced oral as well as documentary evidence. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution apart from other also produced FSL report Ex.P32 dated 19.09.2003. 3. It was also stated by him that he has been falsely involved in this case as the police personnel demands his jeep from time to time. In his defence the appellant produced oral as well as documentary evidence. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution apart from other also produced FSL report Ex.P32 dated 19.09.2003. 3. The trial court after appreciating and evaluating the evidence produced on behalf of the respective parties and hearing both the parties arrived at the conclusion that the house from which the recovery of contraband has been made belongs to appellant and at the time of the alleged recovery the contraband was in the conscious possession of the appellant. It was also concluded by the trial court that compliance of every mandatory provision of the Act was made by the Recovery and Seizure Officer during investigation. Therefore, on the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2004 in the manner as has been stated hereinabove. Hence, the instant appeal. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment and order, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all submitted that recording of statement of an accused-person under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is a legal requirement and the trial court is duty bound to confront the accused with all the relevant evidence specially the evidence which is being read against him. While recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, an opportunity to explain the evidence/circumstances which are stake against him is to be given to the accused and if some important piece of evidence which was recorded against the accused was not pointed out to him by the trial court, that evidence cannot be used to arrive at a conclusion of conviction. It was also submitted that in the present case to prove that the substances recovered were narcotic drugs, the prosecution produced F.S.L. report Ex.P-32 during trial but while recording statement of the appellant under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, no opportunity was given to him to explain about the F.S.L. report and it was not pointed out to him that the Forensic Science Laboratory Jaipur has opined that the substances allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant are narcotic drug opium, charas and ganja and thus, in absence of that, the trial-court was not competent to use the FSL report Ex.P-32 to arrive at a conclusion that the substances recovered from the possession of the appellant are narcotic drug opium, charas and ganja. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases of Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor, Jammu & Kashmir v. Yashpal & Anr. reported in 2009(2) SCC(Crl.) 593 , Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 , Kanhai Mishra alias Kanhaiya Misar v. State of Bihar reported in, 2001(3) SCC 451 , Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra reported in, AIR 2007 SC 2188 , Bheru Lal & Anr. v. Union of India reported in 2011(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 732 and Keshav Prasad & Indra Prakash @ Prakash v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006(2) RCC 1093. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is not necessary that an accused should be confronted with every piece of evidence produced by the prosecution and if in a case the accused has not been confronted with a specific piece of evidence, it is for the accused to show that prejudice has been caused to him due to non disclosure of the said evidence. According to learned Public Prosecutor there is no universal principle that in case the accused has not been confronted with some piece of evidence the same cannot be considered by the trial court. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provision and the case law cited on behalf of the appellant. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provision and the case law cited on behalf of the appellant. 7. The evidence available on record reveals that samples of the substances allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant were sent for chemical examination to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and from there F.S.L. report Ex.P-32 dated 19.09.2003 was received and that was exhibited during trial by Investigating Officer PW-9 Shri Ratan Singh. It is also revealed that the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code on 03.07.2004 and several questions were put to him for explanation relating to evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, but not a single question was asked based on the FSL report Ex.P-32 and he was not confronted with the opinion given by the FSL report. Thus it cannot be disputed that the F.S.L. report Ex.P-32 was not put to the appellant in the statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code Now, it is to be considered what is the effect of it on the conclusions arrived at by the trial court. 8. The Single Bench of this Court in the case of Bheru Lal & Anr. v. Union of India (supra) after analysing the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases held as below. "44. These two divergent judicial points of view need to be harmonized. Article 21 of the Constitution of India clearly prescribes that personal liberty cannot be denied without a procedure established by law. However, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that both the procedural and the substantive laws have to be reasonable. It has also been held that right to a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although fair trial has many facets, but a cardinal element is to ensure that the offender is given a fair chance to explain the incriminating evidence which is against him. In case an incriminating evidence is not brought to the notice of the offender, the incriminating evidence cannot be read against him. Of course not that every piece of evidence has to be brought to the notice of the accused. In case an incriminating evidence is not brought to the notice of the offender, the incriminating evidence cannot be read against him. Of course not that every piece of evidence has to be brought to the notice of the accused. But the law requires that every piece of incriminating evidence, on which the prosecution wishes to rely upon in order to hammer the guilt, such evidence must be brought to the notice of the accused for him to offer his explanation. In case, the incriminating evidence is not brought to his notice, and in case he is convicted on the basis of such incriminating evidence, then the accused is convicted on the basis of evidence which he could neither explain, nor rebut in his defence. Such as process would not only be against the sacred concept of fair trial, but would also contravene the basic concept of rule of law." The learned Single Bench further held as below: "45. Secondly, considering the fact that an accused is over-awed by the might of the state, the law has always protected and promoted the interest of the offender. The cardinal principle of common law is that every person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. Under this principle, it is not for the accused to prove his innocence; the burden to prove his guilt lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Thus, where an incriminating evidence has not been brought to the notice of the accused, and the incriminating evidence forms that foundation, or an important piece of evidence in favour of the prosecution, then prejudice should be presumed. To argue that the accused should "prove prejudice is caused to him", is to insist that the accused should prove his innocence. Moreover, the failure of a fair trial, the violation of rule of law is itself a prejudice caused not only to the accused, but to the society at large. What worse prejudice could be caused, then to be convicted on an evidence which was not brought to the notice of the accused? Such a conviction, surely, would be against the principles of natural justice, a component of fair trial. It is only when a non-important evidence has not been brought to the notice of an accused, then the accused should be called upon to show "the prejudice caused to his case". Such a conviction, surely, would be against the principles of natural justice, a component of fair trial. It is only when a non-important evidence has not been brought to the notice of an accused, then the accused should be called upon to show "the prejudice caused to his case". Whether the evidence is important or unimportant is a question of fact which has to be decided by the Court." It was also held that "no matter how strong the case of the prosecution may be, but a slip on the procedural slope can bring the entire prosecution case tumbling down the hill. This case is a paradigm example of how the mis-recording of the statement under Section 313,, Criminal Procedure Code can lead to the unraveling and collapse of the prosecution case. The recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is neither an empty formality, nor a ceremony to be performed." 9. In above case, although some questions based on the report of the Chemical Analyst were put to the accused in the statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code but some substantial facts were not put to him and the accused of that case was not confronted with the most incriminating evidence against him and in absence of that the learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that as the accused was not confronted with the most incriminating evidence against him to convict him on the basis of the Chemical Analyst report would be to subject him to an unfair trial and since the accused has not been given a chance to offer an explanation, to convict him upon such an evidence is to cause grave injustice to him. It was also concluded that the report of 'the Chemical Analyst cannot be read against the accused and thus, the entire prosecution case against him falls apart and he deserves to be acquitted on this ground alone. 10. In the present case the F.S.L. report Ex.P-32 was not at all put to the appellant in the statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and no explanation was sought from him and he was not confronted with the most incriminating evidence against him. 10. In the present case the F.S.L. report Ex.P-32 was not at all put to the appellant in the statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and no explanation was sought from him and he was not confronted with the most incriminating evidence against him. In my view in absence of that F.S.L. report Ex.P-32 cannot be read against the appellant and consequently, the entire prosecution case against the appellant falls apart and he deserves to be acquitted on this ground alone. When in a case in which some questions regarding Chemical Analyst report were put to the accused but even then in absence of some substantial questions the learned Single Bench of this Court came to a conclusion that the report cannot be read against the accused as the use of such an evidence is to cause grave injustice ti the accused and the learned Single Bench arrived at a definite conclusion that the accused of that case deserves to be acquitted on this ground alone, in the present case the position is more worse as not a single question regarding F.S.L. report was put to the appellant and he was not at all confronted with the report. 11. Since, the appellant deserves to be acquitted on the ground of mis-recording of statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, the other contentions/submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the counter contentions/submissions pleaded by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan need not be dealt with by this Court. 12. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 06.09.2004 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-Ikramuddeen son of Jamal Khan, who is undergoing the sentence passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.24/2003, shall be set at liberty forwith, if not required in any other case. *******