Judgment Alok Singh, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, [N.D.P.S. Act], in Special Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2009, whereby appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one year. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 15/02/2009, S.H.O. Amarjeet Singh PW3 alongwith S.I. Kundan Singh Rana PW1 and other police personnel left Thana vide G.D. No. 23 at 1:30 p.m. for law and order duty; police party could see one person, carrying bag on his head, was coming towards Ganga Rivera Hotel; having seen the police party that person started walking fast; on being suspicion, he was asked to stop, however, he did not stop; however, he was apprehended at about 5:10 p.m. near the plot of Subhash; he was asked as to why he started running, on this, he disclosed to the police party that he was carrying Ganja and was going to sell the same; police party told him if he wish he could be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer/Magistrate; on this, police party was told since, he was carrying Charas, therefore, police party could search him; on being asked, he has disclosed his identity as Chotu Bihari S/o Gopal Das, resident of Goal Vidhya, Thana Kotwali Sukhinadi, District Gaya (Bihar), presently resident of Thokar No.10, Kotwali Haridwar; consent memo was prepared; bag was opened and police person could find 20 kgs Ganga in the packet kept in the bag, being carried by the appellant on his head; after completion of all the formalities, contraband so recovered alongwith; appellant was brought to Thana and, thereafter, chick F.I.R. was got registered at 7:30 p.m. on 15.02.2009. 3. Investigation was handed over to Pradeep Chauhan PW4. Having investigated the matter, chargesheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. 3. Investigation was handed over to Pradeep Chauhan PW4. Having investigated the matter, chargesheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. To prove the prosecution case, S.I. Kundan Singh Rana PW1, Arvind Singh PW2, Amar Jeet Singh PW3 and Investigating Officer Pradeep Chauhan PW4 were examined and, thereafter, statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Having perused the entire material made available on record, learned Trial Judge was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant vide judgment and order impugned in the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. 7. Undisputedly, in the present case neither sample seal was produced which was allegedly prepared by S.H.O. Amar Jeet Singh PW3 while keeping the contraband in the packet under his seal and signature nor malkhana register was produced on the record. Not only this, sample of Ganja was allegedly sent on 1st April, 2009 to F.S.L. Dehradun under the signature of S.S.P. Haridwar through constable 149 Sanjeet Kumar; as per the report of the F.S.L., the same was received at F.S.L., Dehradun on 04.04.2009. Incident is of 15.02.2009, while sample was sent for the first time on 01.04.2009 and received in F.S.L. Dehradun on 04.04.2009. For the reason best known to the prosecution, Constable, Sanjeet Kumar has not been produced in the witness box to say that he has received the sample in intact sealed cover and he has handed over the same in the intact seal cover to F.S.L. Dehradun on 04.04.2009 and during 01.04.2009 to 04.04.2009 sample of contraband remained in his custody in intact position. 8. There is nothing on record to show that sample of the contraband remained intact, untouched and un-tampered during 15th February, 2009 to 4th April, 2009 when the same was delivered to F.S.L., Dehradun. Investigating Officer, Pradeep Chauhan PW4, during his cross examination, states that he has not sent the contraband to forensic laboratory but it was sent by the S.H.O. and he was informed about this. Investigating Officer, Pradeep Chauhan PW4, during his cross examination, states that he has not sent the contraband to forensic laboratory but it was sent by the S.H.O. and he was informed about this. He further states that he has not recorded statement of Sandeep Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; he does not know on which date and at what serial number, contraband so recovered from the appellant was mentioned in the malkhana register to deposit the same in the malkhana. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 59 , in paragraph 3 has held as under:- “We have perused the judgment of the High Court. Apart from other reasons recorded by the High Court, we find that the link evidence adduced by the prosecution was not at all satisfactory. In the first instance, though the seized articles are said to have been kept in the malkhana on 20-5-1995, the malkhana register was not produced to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana till it was taken over by PW6 on 5-6-1995. We further find that no sample of the seal was sent along with the sample to the Excise Laboratory, Jodhpur for the purpose of comparing with the seal appearing on the sample bottles. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove satisfactorily that the seals found were in fact the same seals as were put on the sample bottles immediately after seizure of the contraband. These loopholes in the prosecution case have led the High Court to acquit the respondent.” 10. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmail Singh (Supra), prosecution was duty bound to produce malkhana register as well as sample seal as well as constable Sandeep Kumar before the trial court to prove that contraband so recovered was kept intact, untouched in the malkhana alongwith sample seal; and sample was sent through Sandeep Kumar to F.S.L., Dehradun. In absence of such important link evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution was successful in proving the prosecution story. 11. Consequently, the impugned judgment does not sustain in the eyes of law, therefore, present appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act dated 27.07.2010 in Special Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2009 is set aside. 12. 11. Consequently, the impugned judgment does not sustain in the eyes of law, therefore, present appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act dated 27.07.2010 in Special Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2009 is set aside. 12. Appellant stands acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Appellant is in jail. He may be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 13. Let copy of the judgment alongwith L.C.R. be sent back to the lower court for information and compliance.