JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J The State has challenged acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “Act”) for allegedly keeping in possession 90 grams of opium. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. In the year, 2006, PW-8, Inspector Shiv Chaudhary was posted as SHO in Police Station Kot-Kehloor, District Bilaspur. On 17.4.2006 he was heading police patrol party consisting of H.C. Trilok Chand, H.C. Bodh Raj, constable Dev Raj and driver Bhag Singh of official vehicle. When they reached Majari Khad near electricity tower, the accused was seen coming from opposite side bearing a blue turban. On noticing police party, he had tried to escape towards khad which aroused suspicion. The vehicle was stopped. He was apprehended by the police. His identity was asked. It was an secluded place no independent witness was available, as such, police on their suspicion that he might have contraband in his possession, gave an option in writing to be searched either before the gazette officer or Magistrate. He vide his endorsement in the writing Ex. PW-3/A in Punjabi under his signatures consented to be searched by the police. PW-8 Inspector Shiv Chaudhary rendered himself and his other persons of the police party to be searched by the accused, but nothing incriminating was found in their possession, as such, a memo Ex. PW-3/A was prepared to this effect. (ii) Thereafter PW-8, Shiv Chaudhary aforesaid conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered a polythene packet from the right pocket of his pant, which contained 90 grams of black substance, which was emanating the smell of opium. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated and sealed with seal impression of English letter “T” and the remaining bulk was also sealed with same seal in a separate parcel. The impression of the seal was also taken on pieces of cloth Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B, the facsimile whereof was also taken on the NCB Form in triplicate, one of which is Ex. PW-8/C. The seal after its use was handed over to H.C. Trilok Chand. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B. (iii). The police also prepared the site plan Ex. PW-8/D of the place of alleged occurrence. Ruka Ex. PW-8/C. The seal after its use was handed over to H.C. Trilok Chand. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/B. (iii). The police also prepared the site plan Ex. PW-8/D of the place of alleged occurrence. Ruka Ex. PW-1/A was sent for registration of case, which culminated into FIR Ex. PW-6/A. Accused was arrested. The ground of arrest in writing Ex. PW-8/F was informed to him. (iv) The case property along with NCB Forms, copy of FIR and recovery memo were handed over to PW-6, MHC Rajeshwar Singh on the same day, to its safe deposit in Malkhana by PW-6 aforesaid. The extract of Malkhana register is Ex. PA. (v) On 18.4.2006, vide R.C. No. 40/06 Ex. PB, one of the sample parcels was sent for its examination through PW-2, HHC Sita Ram, to which he deposited on the next day i.e. 19.4.2006 in the CTL, Kandaghat. (vi) The special report was sent to the Officer superior, within statutory time. 4. On its analysis the chemical examiner was of the opinion that the said parcel contains the contents of opium, as it tested positive for meconic acid and morphine. After completion of investigation, the case was presented in the Court for trial of the accused. He was accordingly charge sheeted, tried and acquitted of the said offence, on the ground of contradictions, with respect to report of analysis and that link evidence was not complete. Further that there was no compliance of Section 50 of the Act. 5. On examination of the record, we do not agree with the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court that Section 50 of the Act was not complied with. We have found that the option in writing find mention of necessary elements, which are required to be complied with, which was further corroborated by the investigating officer, when examined in the Court as PW-8. His statement remained unchallenged on this account. We also find that there is an endorsement in Punjabi, whereby accused accepted to exercise his option of his right and ultimately informed the police that he was ready and willing to render himself to be searched by the police. 6. But in so far the contradictions are concerned, we do find material contradictions in evidence which goes to the root of the case. 6. But in so far the contradictions are concerned, we do find material contradictions in evidence which goes to the root of the case. As per the case of the prosecution, one of the samples parcel was sent through constable Sita Ram, PW-2 for its analysis vide Road Certificate No. 40/06. However we have noted that there is a reference of sending one sample parcel along with the remaining bulk of 40 grams along with NCB forms for its analysis, the parcels were also received in the laboratory, as per the receipt appended on the reverse of the Road Certificate. Surprisingly, two parcels, which were alleged to have been transmitted through Road Certificate No. 40/06, were not received in the laboratory and it was only one parcel of 25 grams, which was analyzed. Even the perusal of extract of Malkhana Register does not show the removal of remaining bulk of 40 grams, then in such a situation, it is not understood that as to how, from where and under whose authority this 40 grams of bulk parcel was removed under Road Certificate Ex. PB and where it had gone. If there was a lapse on the part of any of the police officials in casually filing Road Certificate or adopting a casual approach, it is deprecated as they being negligent in performing their duties in accordance with law. The appellant State is at liberty to hold an enquiry and proceed against the defaulting officials, but however we find this conduct raising doubt on the probity of prosecution case. 7. This apart, we find that the report of the chemical examination is not in accordance with law and cannot be acted upon, for the reasons that the opinion as defined under Section 2 (xv) means: “(a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and (b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing nor more than 0.2 per cent of morphine.” 8. There does not appear to be any acceptable evidence that the substance so recovered from the possession of the accused was “coagulated juice of the opium poppy” and “any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy”. There does not appear to be any acceptable evidence that the substance so recovered from the possession of the accused was “coagulated juice of the opium poppy” and “any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy”. The chemical examiner has only given his opinion on the basis of the presence of meconic acid and morphine, that it contains the contents of opium. Even the percentage thereof has not been mentioned. The evidence also does not indicate that the substance recovered from the accused would fall within the meaning of sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section 2(xvi) of the Act. The residuary clause (e) would take into its sweep all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent of morphine. Even from the report aforesaid, it cannot be said that the substance fall within the definition of “opium derivative”, as per Section 2(xvi) of the Act. From the bare reading of the definition of opium aforesaid, it means coagulated juice of “opium poppy” or any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy, but does not include any preparation containing nor more than 0.2 per cent morphine. The report in question does not show that the substance recovered from the accused is coagulated juice of opium poppy or any mixture, with or without any neutral material and the percentage of the morphine in the mixture was 0.2%. The Apex Court in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1704 has held that where the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not say that the stuff was coagulated juice of the opium poppy or it was a mixture with or without any neutral material of coagulated juice of opium poppy but simply expresses the opinion that the stuff is opium, as defined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, such a report is not acceptable and not binding on the Court. This implies that the report of the aforesaid Scientific Expert has to specifically mention that either the stuff is coagulated juice with some other material having morphine content in excess of 0.2 per cent. 9. Applying the above judgment in the present case, we are unable to accept the report in question in accordance with the definition of opium, for which the accused is charge sheeted. 9. Applying the above judgment in the present case, we are unable to accept the report in question in accordance with the definition of opium, for which the accused is charge sheeted. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Bikram Singh, 2012 Cr.L.J., 819 and Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 2001, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dhian Singh, decided on 15.3.2011 have also taken the same view. 10. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused in accordance with law. As such the acquittal of the respondent/accused cannot be interfered with. 11. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records.