JUDGMENT 1. - The Present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners Ahmad Moinuddin and Shambhu Singh challenging their conviction recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Original Case No. 98/1981 by his judgment dated 4.5.1993, whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioners challenged the said judgment by way of an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 13/1993, which was rejected by the Additional Session Judge, Banswara by his judgment dated 27.1.1995. 2. During pendency of hearing of the revision, petitioner No. 1 Ahmad Moinuddin expired and accordingly the revision petition filed on his behalf has abated. 3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and necessary for the disposal of the revision are that the Preventive Inspector of the Central Narcotics Bureau, Mr. Bhanwar Lal Nagori lodged a report at the Police Station, Pipalkhunt on 25.6.1981 alleging inter alia that on receiving an information regarding transit of opium in Jeep No. MSM 714 by Indra Mal Patidar, the Preventive Inspector, along with other members of the Central Narcotics Bureau, formed a blockade on the road going from Mudasel to Banswara. It is further stated in the report that on 26.3.1981 at about 3.30 AM, the above-numbered jeep was seen coming from village Mudasel, on which the preventive team flagged-down the jeep and directed it to stop, the driver of the jeep tried to drive the jeep away but could not do so as the preventive party had surrounded the same. A total of five persons including Indra Mal Patidar were sitting in the Jeep. Indra Mal Patidar and two other persons sitting in the jeep ran away after assaulting the preventive party but the remaining two could be apprehended, who were accused-petitioners Abroad Moinuddin and Shambhu Singh. The jeep was brought to the shop of one Ratan Lal Jain and the search thereof was conducted in the presence of Panchas, on which a total of twenty plastic packets packed in five gunny bags containing contraband opium were found. On weightment, the opium was found to be weighing 194.400 kilograms. The jeep was brought to the shop of one Ratan Lal Jain and the search thereof was conducted in the presence of Panchas, on which a total of twenty plastic packets packed in five gunny bags containing contraband opium were found. On weightment, the opium was found to be weighing 194.400 kilograms. It is stated that from each of the plastic packets, two samples of 30 grams of opium, i.e. a total of 40 samples were taken in empty cigarrate cases. After completion of necessary proceedings of seizure and sealing, the Preventive Inspector Bhanwar Lal Nagori lodge the F.I.R. at the Police Station, Pipalkhunt on 23.6.1981, whereupon F.I.R. No. 11/1981 of Police Station, Pipalkhunt was registered and the investigation ensued. After usual investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Ahmad, Shambhu Singh and Indera Dev Patidar for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. The present petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated above and the appeal preferred by them against the conviction has been rejected. Accordingly, the present revision. The third accused Indra Dev Patidar was acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. 4. Mr. Mridul Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his challenge to the conviction of the petitioner Shambhu Singh on a single ground and submits that in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the requisite the link evidence for the purpose of showing that the samples of the seized contraband remained in the self-same condition right from the time of seizure till the time when the same reached to the Chemical Examiner and, thus, when there was no evidence to show that the samples remained in the self-same condition in which they were seized, resultantly the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be used for the purpose of holding the recovered article as contraband opium. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that in this case the seizure of the opium has been made by Bhanwar Lal Nagori, Inspector Narcotics Bureau, who has been examined as PW-1 at the trial. It is submitted that PW-1 Bhanwar Lal Nagori, in his sworn testimony in the Court has not stated as to what he did with the samples of opium which had been taken out at the spot. He further submitted that when the Inspector was examined in the Court, the samples of the opium were not exhibited in the Court. It is submitted that PW-1 Bhanwar Lal Nagori, in his sworn testimony in the Court has not stated as to what he did with the samples of opium which had been taken out at the spot. He further submitted that when the Inspector was examined in the Court, the samples of the opium were not exhibited in the Court. It has further been pointed out the this Court that on the cross-examination being conducted, the Inspector has stated that out of the two sets of samples which had been packed and sealed at the spot, one set of the samples was deposited at the Police Station, Pipalkhunt and the remaining set of 20 packets was deposited by the witness at his Head Office for further action. The witness stated that the articles which were deposited in the Head Office, did not bear any seal-chit etc. and the specimen impression of seal, which was used for sealing the samples, was not prepared separately and no such specimen seal impression is available on the record. This witness also stated that he did not receive any article from the Police Station, Pipalkhunt and after depositing the samples at the Headquarters, the witness did not have any occasion to see the sample. He deposited the sample personally to the Superintendent and he did not know as to who took the samples from the Office of the Superintendent and deposited the same at Neemuch. 6. The next witness, whose statement has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is PW-4 Dulle Singh, who was a Police Constable posted at the Police Lines, Banswara, he has deposited that he was called to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara for the purpose of taking 20 samples of this case or chemical examination on 4.5.1981. He stated in the cross- examination that the seal of the Police Station, Pipalkhunt was marked on the samples. 7. The next witness, whose statement has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is PW-9 Nathu Lal, who was a Police Constable posted at the Police Lines, Banswara. He stated in the cross- examination that the seal of the Police Station, Pipalkhunt was marked on the samples. 7. The next witness, whose statement has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is PW-9 Nathu Lal, who was a Police Constable posted at the Police Lines, Banswara. He stated that on 20.4.1981, he was given twenty packets having seals and chits from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara for taking the same to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and when he took the samples to Jaipur, some objections were raised, on which he brought back and deposited at the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara. On cross-examination, he admitted that details of the objections raised at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, were not known to him and no document regarding such objection was available on the record. 8. The next witness referred to is PW-11 Mohammad Sayeed, who was posted as a Head Constable at the Police Station, Pipalkhunt on 26.3.1981. He stated that Bhanwar Lal Nagori gave him the report EX.4 along with the jeep, the accused as well as the packets of the opium as also 20 packets of the samples. The witness further stated that he deposited the samples and all the articles in the Malkhana and handed over the charge of the Malkhana items to Karan Singh, Head Constable. Thereafter the witness received 20 packets of Sealed samples from Karan Singh on 7.4.1981 and deposited the same with Dinesh Trivedi at the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara. On cross-examination, he admitted that there is no document on. the record showing handing over the custody of the samples to Karan Singh by this witness. He further admitted that there was no document regarding deposition of the samples at the Office of the Superintendent of Police available on the record as well. 9. Karan Singh has been examined as PW-12, who stated that he look over the charge of the goods from PW-11 Mohammad Sayeed on 29.3.1981 and then handed over the same to Mohammed Sayeed on 7.4.1981. 10. 9. Karan Singh has been examined as PW-12, who stated that he look over the charge of the goods from PW-11 Mohammad Sayeed on 29.3.1981 and then handed over the same to Mohammed Sayeed on 7.4.1981. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are two sets of reports of the Chemical Examiner, which have been exhibited at the record : one being Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-18 of the Government Opium and Allkaloid Works, Neemuch (M.P.), as per which the samples were received vide letter dated 31.3.1981 of the Superintendent (P), Neemuch. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no evidence on record to show as to who had received the samples at the Office of the Superintendent, Neemuch and in what condition the samples remained from the time they deposited with the Superintendent, Neemuch till they reached the Chemical Examiner at the Government Laboratory, Neemuch. Thus, learned counsel submits that the reports Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-18 are of no avail to the prosecution in absence of the link evidence necessary for proving that the sample packets remained intact from the time of seizure till they reached the Chemical Examiner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the other report, which has been relied upon by the prosecution is the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur dated 9.9.1981, which has been exhibited and marked as Ex.P-19. Learned counsel submits that as per this report, the samples had been received in the State Forensic Science Laboratory on 6.5.1981. He submits that there is no evidence on the record of the case to show as so what was the condition of the samples between 26.3.1981 to 7.4.1981 when PW-11 Mohammad Sayeed took the same to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Banswara and thereafter from 7.4.1981 to 6.5.1981 when the samples had been again received by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur learned counsel submits that there is such a grave discrepancy regarding the dates on which the samples were taken from the Police Station, Pipalkhunt and were deposited at the State Forensic Science Laboratory as per the testimony of PW-9 Nathu Lal and PW-12 Karan Singh that it is impossible to reconcile as to what was the condition of the samples during the period. Thus, it is submitted that once the evidence regarding the condition of the samples remaining intact right from the time of seizure till the time they were received in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur is totally contradictory and defective then the Chemical Examiner's report based on such reports, cannot be relied upon. 12. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court as well as the learned lower appellate Court have relied upon the circumstance that the witness of the prosecution stated to have tasted and smelt the recovered article and they found the same to be opium on so testing and smelling, but the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no such circumstance was put to them in their statement that the witness had deposed about the recovered article to be opium on tasting and smelling. Thus, it is submitted that the statements of the witnesses to this effect that they found the recovered article to be opium by tasting and smelling, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the accused. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions for buttressing his the argument that unless and until the prosecution produces the requisite link evidence for showing that the seized articles were kept in a self-same condition right from the date of seizure till the date the same reached to the Chemical Examiner then in such circumstances the report of the Chemical Examiner cannot be relied upon. (1) State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1314 ; (2) Mukana Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr LR (Raj.) 85 ; (3) Deeps Rem v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr LR (Raj.) 699 ; (4) Sukha & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr LR (Raj.) 524 ; and (5) State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh, 2005 (2) CJ (SC) Cr 288 Thus, it is submitted that since the prosecution has not produced the requisite link evidence, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and submitted that a huge quantity of contraband opium was recovered from the petitioner's possession and the conviction of the petitioner should not be interfered with merely on the technical grounds. 15. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, supported the judgment of the learned trial Court and submitted that a huge quantity of contraband opium was recovered from the petitioner's possession and the conviction of the petitioner should not be interfered with merely on the technical grounds. 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the impugned judgment and the record of the case. 16. The evidence of the prosecution witness, which have been referred to above, clearly reveals that there are huge contradictions in the prosecution story in relation to the condition in which the samples remained from the time of their seizure till they reached the Chemical Examiner. From the salient features of the evidence which have been reproduced here-in-above, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution, in this case, has miserably failed to show that the samples of the recovered contraband opium remained in the self-same situation from the time of their seizure till they reached to the Chemical Examiner. 17. The reports of Government Opium and Allkaloid Works, Neemuch (M.P.), which have been exhibited as Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-18, relate to the samples which were deposited by PW-1 Bhanwar Lal Nagori with the Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics. No witness of the Office of the Superintendent Central Bureau of Narcotics. Neemuch has been examined by the prosecution for the purpose of showing as to what was the condition of the samples after they were deposited with the Superintendent and were forwarded to the Government Laboratory at Neemuch. Thus, the reports Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-18 are of no avail to the prosecution. 18. With regards to the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-19, it has been seen above that there are numerous discrepancies as regards the dates on which the samples were taken to the Laboratory. Further more, as per the statement of PW-9 Nathu Lal, the samples, after being deposited in the Laboratory at Jaipur, were returned back with some objections. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show what where those objections. Further more, as per the statement of PW-9 Nathu Lal, the samples, after being deposited in the Laboratory at Jaipur, were returned back with some objections. The prosecution has not led any evidence to show what where those objections. Thus, it become apparent that the link evidence as regards the samples, for which the report EX.P. 19 has been produced by the prosecution, is totally contradictory and so incomplete that this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to produce the requisite link evidence, thereby taking out the report Ex.P-19 from the ambit of admissibility against the accused.. 19. Further more, the prosecution, i.e. the seizure office, was required to prepare the specimen memo of impression of the seal, with which the samples were sealed for the purpose of forwarding the same to the Chemical Examiner so that the seals on the samples deposited in the Office of the Chemical Examiner could be compared with the specimen memo of seal used for sealing the samples at the time of seizure. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that no such specimen memo was ever prepared. Thus, the only conclusion, which can be arrived at is that the link evidence for proving the samples remaining intact is totally missing in this case. 20. Accordingly, the reports of the two Chemical Examiners, which have been relied upon by the learned trial Court, cannot be accepted for the purpose of holding that the article recovered from the petitioners was opium. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioners as recorded by the trial Court and as upheld by the Appellate do not stand to the scrutiny. 21. The learned lower Courts have considered the fact that the witness to the seizure of the opium stated that on testing and smelling, the contraband recovered, they found the same to be opium. Firstly, the evidence in relation to this aspect of the matter is contradictory and secondly if at all this circumstance had to be used against the accused then it ought to have been specifically put to the accused when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reveal that this circumstance has not been specifically put to the accused. Firstly, the evidence in relation to this aspect of the matter is contradictory and secondly if at all this circumstance had to be used against the accused then it ought to have been specifically put to the accused when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reveal that this circumstance has not been specifically put to the accused. Thus, the conclusion of the trial Judge that the contraband recovered should be treated to be opium as the witness to the recovery found the same to be opium on tasting and smelling has wrongly been arrived at by the trial Judge against the accused. 22. The upshot of the above discussion is that the revision succeeds and the conviction of the petitioner, as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained. 23. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 4.5.1993 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 98/1981 as well as the impugned judgment dated 27.1.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Appeal No. 13/1993, are set aside. The petitioner is on bail and he need not surrender. His bali bonds stand discharged.Revision Allowed. *******