JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Respondent had faced trial in F.I.R. No.364/2008, registered at Police Station Moti Dungri (East), District Jaipur, offence under Section 8/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Trial court vide order dated 27.11.2012, ordered the acquittal of the respondent. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Learned State Counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 4. Present case relates to recovery of 1 Kilo 30 grams Ganja from the respondent on 26.12.2008. Learned Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent has considered that there was inordinate delay in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. It has been further noticed by the trial court that PW-10 Jagmohan malkhana incharge had stated that on 30.07.2009. PW-8 Gokul Chand was handed over the sealed parcel Mark 'B' for depositing the same with the Forensic Science Laboratory. The said official after doing the needful had handed over the receipt to him on the same day. The said witness further stated that on 12.02.2009, the parcel Mark 'B' was sent to the office of superintendent of police for issuance of forwarding letter. However, the prosecution has failed to establish as to who had taken the sample parcel to the office of superintendent of police on 12.02.2009. Hence, the possibility that the sample had been tampered with, could not be ruled out. 5. PW-8 Gokul Chand admitted in his cross-examination that he had not gone to get the forwarding letter. Ex. P-19 prepared by the office of superintendent of police. The said witness further admitted that the name of the person who had gone for preparation of the forwarding letter was not mentioned in Ex. P-19. 6. Thus, the reasons given by the trial court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent are sound reasons and call for no interference. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 8. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 8. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: "(8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed" 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.