JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. - The State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in S.C. No. 101 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 20(b) of N.D. and P.S. Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 27.08.1994 at about 8.00 PM, the OIC, Kotpad Police Station received some credible information regarding some people carrying ganja bags and going from Chitrakonda side to Bargaon side. So, he having made necessary station diary entry to that effect, proceeded to village Surli with other staff. They waited and remained on guard at the place during the night. Next morning around 6.00 A.M., they saw 26 persons carrying 'bharas' proceeding towards Bargaon side on foot through the paddy fields. Suspecting those persons carrying ganja, they chased them and the S.I. of Police, Mr. M.S. Behera caught hold the respondent who was also carrying the 'bhara'. He was produced before the O.I.C., who was camping there. The respondent then disclosed his identity being asked. He was also told about the right of his option available for being searched in presence of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and when replied in negative, the O.I.C, (P.W.6) made search after observing all formalities and seized bhara which was carrying the load of two gunny bags and each bag was found to be containing 15 Kgs. of ganja. Seizure list was prepared vide Ext. 1. Thereafter P.W.6 collected 25 grams of ganja from each bag and prepared two separate packets for the purpose of sample and then packed those. The bags containing residue ganja were then sealed and so also the sample packets. It is said that a coin of denomination of 25 paisa was used for the purpose of sealing. The respondent was arrested and plain paper FIR, Ext. 6 was drawn up at the spot. On their return to the police station, necessary case was registered on the basis of said Ext. 6 and intimation was given to the Circle Inspector of Police, Boriguma regarding said search, seizure and arrest of the respondent. The Circle Inspector of Police then took the charge of the investigation from P.W.6. In course of the investigation, he forwarded the respondent to the Court; samples were sent for chemical examination through the J.M.F.C, Kotpad Report from the chemical examiner, Ext. The Circle Inspector of Police then took the charge of the investigation from P.W.6. In course of the investigation, he forwarded the respondent to the Court; samples were sent for chemical examination through the J.M.F.C, Kotpad Report from the chemical examiner, Ext. 5 being received confirming the contents of the sample packets to be ganja, the charge sheet was placed against the respondent and accordingly, he faced trial for the above offence. 3. The plea of the respondent is complete denial and false implication. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the respondent, when examined six witnesses, none was examined from the side of the defence. Out of those witnesses, P.W.6 is the O.I.C., of Police under whose leadership the police personnel had been to the spot and had camped at the night till the detection of the case in the next morning. The S.I. of Police, who had chased the respondent and apprehended him, has come to the dock as P.W.2. P.W.3 is another S.I. of Police who was there along with P.Ws.2 and 6 as the members of the said party and was also present during the search and seizure. The Investigating Officer, who is the Circle Inspector of Police has been examined as P.W.4, and two other independent witnesses to the search and seizure are P.Ws.1 and 5. Furthermore, the prosecution has got admitted in evidence, the relevant seizure list marked as Ext. 1. Ext. 2 is the report of the P.W.4 intimating him about search, recovery and seizure of ganja from the two bags being carried by the respondent in that bhara. Report of the chemical examiner has been admitted in the evidence and marked as Ext. 5, and Ext. 6 is the FIR. The copy of the letter forwarding the sample to the chemical examiner is Ext. 4. 5. The trial Court upon analysis of the evidence and upon their appreciation has found the prosecution to have well established its case that the respondent at the relevant date and time was found to be carrying the bhara (M.O.III) being loaded with two gunny bags whose contents weighed 15 kgs. 4. 5. The trial Court upon analysis of the evidence and upon their appreciation has found the prosecution to have well established its case that the respondent at the relevant date and time was found to be carrying the bhara (M.O.III) being loaded with two gunny bags whose contents weighed 15 kgs. However, on further analysis of the evidence having found the non-compliance of the provision of Section 55 of the N.D. and P.S. Act, finding has been recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove by leading clear and cogent evidence that the samples collected from those bags carried by the respondent in that bhara were actually placed before the chemical examiner for analysis. In other words, it has been held that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity and safe keeping overruling the possibility of tampering and meddling with the sample packets so far as these contents are concerned. The trial Court has found one doubtful feature that prior to the registration of the police case being assigned with number, in the contemporaneous documents prepared at the spot, the said P.S. Case number has found place. So, the veracity of the prosecution case as regards the seizure, preparation of the seizure list, collection of sample, sealing of sample packets at the spot have been viewing with suspicion. In view of all these, the order of acquittal having been recorded, the same has been impugned in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the finding with regard to non-compliance of the provision of Section 55 of the N.D. and P.S. Act is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. According to him, the evidence is overwhelming on the score to establish that contents of the samples packets placed before the chemical examiner for analysis were collected from those bags carried by the respondents. It is also his submission that no such material surfaces in the evidence to show that there was any tampering with the samples and had it been so the Court where those were deposited for onward dispatch for chemical analysis would have noticed. Referring to Ext. 5, he further submits that the chemical examiner nowhere indicated as regards any tampering with the packets or the seals of the packets to be not intact. Referring to Ext. 5, he further submits that the chemical examiner nowhere indicated as regards any tampering with the packets or the seals of the packets to be not intact. Therefore, he urges that the order of acquittal is based on perverse appreciation of evidence and as such is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand supports the finding rendered by the trial Court with regard to non-compliance of Section 55 of the N.D. and P.S. Act. According to him, the collection of samples and sealing have not been done following the required procedure prescribed for the purpose and also required to safeguards to have been taken to overrule the possibility or any scope of tampering with those samples. He further submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the factum of safekeeping of those sample packets right from the time of seizure till their production before the Court. Therefore, he contends that the appeal bears no merit. 7. Keeping in view the rival submission, before going to take up the exercise in the matter to appreciate the evidence, it is felt to apposite to take note of the settled position of law with regard to power of this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. It has been held in case of Basappa v. State of Karnataka; (2014) 57 OCR 1044 that the High Court in an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is entitled to reappraise the evidence and put the conclusions drawn by the trial Court to test but the same is permissible only if the judgment of the trial Court is perverse. Relying the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh;, (2009) 10 SCC 639, it has been held that the word "perverse" in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean 'against weight of evidence'. In 'K. Prakashan v. P.K. Survenderan;, (2008) 1 SCC 258 , it has also been held that the Appellate Court should not reverse the acquittal merely because another view is possible on evidence. It has been clarified that if two views are reasonably possible on the very same evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt (Ref :- T. Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu;, (2006) 1 SCC 401 ). It has been clarified that if two views are reasonably possible on the very same evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt (Ref :- T. Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu;, (2006) 1 SCC 401 ). Further, the interference by appellate Court against an order of acquittal is held to be justified only if the view taken by the trial Court is one which no reasonable person would in the given circumstances, take (Ref - Bhima Singh v. State of Haryana;, (2002) 10 SCC 461). 8. On the above rival submissions and in view of the settled position of law, in order to judge the sustainability of the finding of the trial Court on the question of non-compliance of the provision of Section 55 of the N.D. and P.S. Act, first of all the evidence of P.W.6 needs to be gone through. P.W.6 is the OIC of Kotpat Police Station before whom P.W.2 produced the respondent after apprehending him with that bhara (MO.Ill) carrying two gunny bags. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that after seizure of those gunny bags and after production of the respondent with that bhara and gunny bags weighment of the contents of the bags was made and he removed 25 grams of ganja from each bags and prepared two sample packets and then sealed those packets by using coin of 25 paisa denomination which he is saying to have given in zima of one Ghasi Harijan. But interestingly, this Ghasi Harijan has not been examined when judicial notice of the fact can well be taken that such coin of 25 paisa denomination are commonly available and can be procured at case. He has further stated to have kept those seized as containing residue ganja and seized sample packets in the police station malkhana. P.W.4 has taken charge of the investigation of the case on return to the police station on the next date, i.e. on 29.08.1994. While stating that he took charge of investigation of the case, he straight way comes to say that the first step he took was by forwarding the respondent to the Court along with that sample ganja packets. P.W.4 has taken charge of the investigation of the case on return to the police station on the next date, i.e. on 29.08.1994. While stating that he took charge of investigation of the case, he straight way comes to say that the first step he took was by forwarding the respondent to the Court along with that sample ganja packets. He has not breathed a word that where he received those sample packets or that he received those from the police station malkhana and those were already in deposit there when he took charge of the investigation of the case. Thus there remains missing of link as to what happened from the time of collection of the sample and where those remained since the time of their collections till those were placed before the Court. The prosecution was under definite obligation to establish those by leading clear and cogent evidence as regards their safekeeping. Even if, it is accepted for a moment that P.W.6 had not taken his personal seal for which it could not be used at the relevant time, he has not followed the procedure of resealing those sample packets on return to the police station. P.W.4 has not stated to have not taken those sample packets and to have resealed those by using of his personal seal nor he is breathing a word that he found sample packets with such seal placed by using the coin of 25 paise denomination and those were intact. 9. It is the settled position of law that the prosecution is required 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 by the Investigating or any third agency and the same was the vary articles produced before the Magistrate and sent for chemical analysis. It has also to be established that there was proper sealing and safe custody of the seized articles so that articles examined in the laboratory can be relatable to the articles seized. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis by adducing unimpeachable evidence leaving no scope of suspicion. Criminal trial does not admit any gap or missing link. It is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis by adducing unimpeachable evidence leaving no scope of suspicion. Criminal trial does not admit any gap or missing link. In this connection the decisions in case of Valsala v. State of Kerala;, (1993) 6 OCR SC 457, Sinic Patricia v. State; (1994) 7 OCR 277, Bimsen Sahoo v. State of Orissa; (1997) 12 OCR 443 and Ram Bahadur Pandey v. State of Orissa, (2009) 43 OCR, SC 466 besides the decisions reported in case of Sk. Faiaz v. State of Orissa; (2010) 46 OCR 855, Jadaba Dehury @ Deheri v. State of Orissa;, (2009) 44 OCR 320 may be referred to. In view of above discussion in evidence in detail in para-9 and the settled position of law as stated above, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the State against the finding of the trial Court with regard to non-compliance of the provision of Section 55 of N.D. and P.S. Act and failure of the prosecution to establish by leading the clear, cogent and reliable evidence that the samples collected from the contents of bags from the possession of the respondent, were actually placed before the chemical examiner for analysis. The trial Court thus having arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove this aspect of the case with satisfactory evidence to fasten the guilt upon the respondent for the purpose of holding him to have been in possession of ganja as per the case projected by the prosecution, on reappraisal of evidence this Court also find the evidence to be unsatisfactorily on that score. Thus the prosecution is found to have failed to prove the factum of proper sealing and safe custody of the seized articles so as to establish beyond reasonable doubt that articles recovered from the possession of the respondent was the subject matter of the chemical examination for the chemical examiners report (Ext. 5) to form the basis in establishing the required nexus. Therefore, the ultimate result rendered in the trial acquitting the respondent of the charge is not found to be amenable to interference in this appeal. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed