JUDGMENT : Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—By way of this appeal, the appellant Kunj Ahmed has approached this Court assailing the judgment dated 06.01.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), NDPS Cases, Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No.177/2008 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and sentencing him to 14 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 years' simple imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts necessary and relevant for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow: Baldev Singh (PW-2) was working as Chief Security Officer at the Maharana Pratap Airport, Udaipur on 10.05.2008. He was assigned the duty of checking the baggage of the passengers on that day. Flight No.IC-471 was scheduled to proceed from Udaipur to Mumbai. It is alleged that about 03.15 PM, a passenger came and placed his baggage on the belt of the X-ray Machine. Baldev Singh noticed three suspicious packets inside a bag put on the belt by the said passenger. The officer, instructed his subordinates to put the bag aside and call the passenger for physical checking of the bag's contents. Upon inquiry being made from the passenger regarding the contents of the bag, he told that Henna (Mehandi) packets were packed in it. He took out one packet of Henna from the bag which was again put into the X-ray Machine. The passenger showed reluctance in showing the other packets and pleaded that he would miss the flight. The passenger was assured that the flight was delayed and he would not miss it. When the suspicious packets were put into the X-ray Machine, difference in material density was noticed. At this point of time, the suspect requested that he wanted to go to the washroom and saying this, he put the packets back into the bag and went away under the pretext of going to the washroom but did not return. The security officer immediately called Dilip Singh, Inspector CSF. Dilip Singh also checked the packets and found the same to be suspicious. The SHO, Police Station Dabok was immediately informed. He reached the Airport within 15 minutes. As per the security officer Baldeo Singh, the suspect passenger who abandoned the bag was Kunj Ahmed. He went away under the pretext of going to the washroom and managed to escape abondoning his ticket and the suspicious baggage. The SHO, Police Station Dabok was immediately informed. He reached the Airport within 15 minutes. As per the security officer Baldeo Singh, the suspect passenger who abandoned the bag was Kunj Ahmed. He went away under the pretext of going to the washroom and managed to escape abondoning his ticket and the suspicious baggage. 3. Baldev Singh submitted a written report to the SHO Dabok upon his arrival at the Airport. The contents of the written report which was marked as Ex.P/4 at the trial, are of vital importance and are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- ^^lsok esa] Jheku~ mi dek.MsaV] lh-vkbZ-,l-,Q- ,e-ih- gokbZ vìk] mn;iqjA fo"k; % vuDyseM~ cSxst ,Dl&js e'khu ijA egksn;] vkt fnukad 10 ebZ 2008 tc viuh ykbZV la[;k vkbZlh&471 dh cSx dh tk¡p ,Dljs e'khu }kjk dj jgk FkkA ml oä ,d ;k=h ds iath—r lkeku esa dqN lafnX/k iSdsV fn[kkbZ fn,A iSlsUtj ls iwNrkN djus ij irk pyk fd oks cSx ,d ;k=h dk tks fd vkbZlh&471 cEcbZ dh ;k=k dj jgk gSA ;k=h dk uke dqat vgen FkkA ftldh bZ-fVdV la[;k 0582300&154725 FkhA mä O;fä ls iwNrkN djus ij mlus 'kkSp tkus dk cgkuk dj okfil ugha vk;kA ;g lwpuk lh-vkbZ-,l-,Q- ds vf/kdkjh baLisDVj Jh fnyhiflag dks nh xbZA mUgksaus bZ-Vh-Mh- djds ns[kk rks lafnX/k oLrq gksus dk vuqeku fd;kA vkSj mUgksaus Mcksd Fkkuk vf/kdkjh dks lwpuk nsus gsrq vuqjks/k fd;kA D;ksafd mUgksaus dgk fd bl iSdsVks esa eknd inkFkZ gksus dh lEHkkouk gks ldrh gSA 4. Ranvijay Singh, SHO, P.S. Dabok initiated the search proceedings. The abandoned bag was opened and on checking, three packets concealed inside the bag were suspected to be of brown sugar/heroine. Two blankets, two bed-sheets and one packet of Milan Brand Henna were also found inside the bag. Requisite formalities of taking out samples from the contraband were performed at the spot. The samples, & the packets of brown sugar were sealed and the other articles left behind by the suspect passenger were also seized. Seizure memo was prepared at the spot. The SHO also collected a print out of the e-ticket of the passenger from the Flight Operator at the Airport. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and registered FIR No.113/2008 for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. Call detail record of the mobile number mentioned on the e-ticket was taken out. The SHO also collected a print out of the e-ticket of the passenger from the Flight Operator at the Airport. Thereafter, he returned to the police station and registered FIR No.113/2008 for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. Call detail record of the mobile number mentioned on the e-ticket was taken out. One number of Rajasthan origin was found suspicious and the same was traced to one Moinuddin, an auto rickshaw driver. Upon being interrogated, Moinuddin disclosed that he had been engaged by a person named Kunj Ahmed who had stayed at the Hotel Mewar Inn and Hotel Sangam. The entry registers of Hotel Mewar Inn as well as Hotel Sangam were seized. Subsequent investigation was handed over to the probationary IPS, Don K. Jose posted as SHO, Police Station Maoli. Don K. Jose, during investigation, recorded the statements of the police party associated with the seizure, the hotel employees, namely Shanker Lal and Vikram Singh working at the Hotel Mewar Inn wherein the suspect stayed during his visit at Udaipur. He also recovered a slip bearing the name and the mobile number of Kunj Ahmed from Moinuddin. 5. The investigation officer allegedly received information that the suspect Kunj Ahmed was lodged at Calicut Jail, Kerala. He reached Cochin on 20.05.2008 and procured an order from the Magistrate and procured custody of the accused Kunj Ahmed in the present case from the Calicut Jail. The accused was allegedly, kept Baparda. Some documents and a suitcase was recovered from the house of the accused. During course of investigation, the accused gave an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had procured the brown sugar from one Iqbal. In furtherance of such information, the spot verification memo of the house of accused Iqbal was prepared. Spot verification of the Dabok Airport and the two hotels i.e. Mewar Inn and Sangam where the accused stayed during his visit to Udaipur was also got conducted. Call details of the mobile allegedly being used by the accused were procured. List of the passengers scheduled to travel on the flight on which the accused was to travel was also collected. The accused Kunj Ahmed was put up for test identification at the hands of Baldev Singh and Moinuddin. Both of them correctly identified the accused. Record of the ticket booked by the accused was collected from Seema Salve. List of the passengers scheduled to travel on the flight on which the accused was to travel was also collected. The accused Kunj Ahmed was put up for test identification at the hands of Baldev Singh and Moinuddin. Both of them correctly identified the accused. Record of the ticket booked by the accused was collected from Seema Salve. The sample of the seized contraband was forwarded to the FSL for chemical examination. Specimen signatures of the accused were procured and were forwarded to the FSL for comparison with the handwriting on the slip recovered from Moinuddin. The co-accused Iqbal was also arrested. 6. Upon conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the appellant and the co-accused Iqbal for the offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The FSL report (Ex.P/15) regarding the samples taken out from seized contraband was received as per which, the samples tested positive for the presence of diacetyl morphine/ heroine. The report of the handwriting expert was also received as per which, the standard signature of the accused matched with the signatures appended on the hotel register and the writings on the slip of paper allegedly recovered from Moinuddin. 7. The learned trial Judge, framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. Co-accused Iqbal was charged for the offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, examined as many as 31 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution allegations. However, they did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit the accused Iqbal from the charge under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. However, the accused appellant Kunj Ahmed was held guilty for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this appeal. 8. Shri Rajiv Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate representing the accused appellant vehemently contended that the appellant's conviction in this case is totally unjustified. He urged that the entire prosecution story is concocted and full of doubts. Hence this appeal. 8. Shri Rajiv Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Dhirendra Singh, Advocate representing the accused appellant vehemently contended that the appellant's conviction in this case is totally unjustified. He urged that the entire prosecution story is concocted and full of doubts. The grounds of challenge advanced by the learned counsel for assailing the impugned judgment are noted hereinbelow:- (a) That the prosecution could not prove the identity of the offender: 9. As per him, the prosecution failed to give evidence to the effect that the recovered contraband was placed on the belt of the X-ray machine by none other than the appellant. He urged that the evidence of the first informant (PW-2) Baldev Singh is highly doubtful cooked up and vacillating and no reliance can be placed thereupon. 10. He pointed out that Baldev Singh, in his evidence, stated that he had retained the flight ticket given to him by the suspect Kunj Ahmed and handed it over to the SHO Ranvijay Singh. Drawing the Court's attention to the statement of Ranvijay Singh (PW-28), he urged that the SHO, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he got a print out of the e-ticket taken from the Airline Staff at the Airport and took it on record. Learned counsel thus contended that the entire substratum of the prosecution story that the appellant was the person who placed the suspicious bag containing the contraband on the X-ray Machine is totally falsified from this circumstance alone. 11. He further contended that Moinuddin, the auto rickshaw driver, who was examined as PW-1, did not support the prosecution story at the trial nor did the two hotel employees Shanker Lal (PW-5) and Vikram Singh (PW-6) state that the appellant had stayed in their hotel. He further contended that the name of the suspect passenger, as mentioned on the e-ticket of which the print out was procured by Ranvijay Singh from the airline staff, is mentioned as Kunja Hameed. He further contended that the investigating officer did not collect any evidence to the effect that the mobile sim number mentioned on the e-ticket belonged to the appellant. The so-called call details were not exhibited at the trial. (b) That the link evidence for proving sanctity of ten samples and the proof of Muddamaal is lacking substance:- 12. He further contended that the investigating officer did not collect any evidence to the effect that the mobile sim number mentioned on the e-ticket belonged to the appellant. The so-called call details were not exhibited at the trial. (b) That the link evidence for proving sanctity of ten samples and the proof of Muddamaal is lacking substance:- 12. He urged that the seizure officer did not prepare any specimen memo of seal at the time of the seizure and therefore, the official at the Forensic Science Laboratory had no means to tally the seals appended on the samples with the documents prepared at the time of alleged seizure. As per him, the prosecution failed to lead proper evidence to prove that the samples of the seized contraband remained in the self same condition right from the time of seizure till they were received at the Forensic Science Laboratory. The seized contraband was not produced and exhibited before the trial Court during trial in the self same condition. 13. Thus he urged that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned Special Judge is grossly illegal and contrary to the facts available on record and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel and urged that the appellant was not known to Baldev Singh from before. Thus, the officer had no animus against the accused and consequently, there was no occasion for him to falsely implicate the appellant. He was posted as a Security Officer at the Airport and there was no reason as to why he would implicate the appellant for such a grave offence unless he was sure of his identity. He contended that the appellant was correctly identified by Baldev Singh as well as Moinuddin in the test identification proceedings. The investigating officer Don K. Jose gave fool proof and trustworthy evidence to the effect that right from the time, the appellant was arrested from the jail at Calicut till he was subjected to test identification at the hands of Baldev Singh and Moinuddin, he was kept in a Baparda condition. Thus the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the judgment of conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court is perfectly just and proper and does not call for any interference whatsoever. 15. Thus the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the judgment of conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court is perfectly just and proper and does not call for any interference whatsoever. 15. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. (i) Whether prosecution has been able to establish beyond all manner of doubt that the appellant Kunj Ahmed was the real offender:- 16. The entire substratum of the prosecution case is founded and built up on the testimony of Baldev Singh (PW-2), the Security Officer of the Dabok Airport, Udaipur, the Seizure Officer Ranvijay Singh (PW-8) and Don K. Jose (PW-29), the investigating officer. In the written report (Ex.P/4) submitted by Shri Baldev Singh, a very significant fact is mentioned with which, the witness was confronted during his cross-examination. The report (which is quoted supra) mentions that the baggage of one passenger appeared to be suspicious. Inquiry was made from passengers who told the security officer that the bag belonged to a traveller named Kunj Ahmed who was travelling to Mumbai on Flight No.IC-411. From this pertinent narration made in the written report filed by the Security Officer Baldev Singh to the seizure officer SHO Ranvijay Singh, an inference can safely be drawn that the witness himself did not himself see the accused Kunj Ahmed placing the suspected bag on the X-ray Machine and some passenger gave him this information. The details of the e-ticket number of the suspected traveller are mentioned in the report. The report also mentions that the inquiry was made from the said traveller and he, escaped under the pretext of going to the toilet. The witness (PW-2) Baldev Singh, during course of his sworn testimony at the trial, claimed that the traveller whose baggage was found to be suspicious was himself asked about the suspicious packets but he showed reluctance in opening and showing the contents thereof. Thereafter, the bag and the suspicious packets were opened in presence of the suspect. The witness further claims to have taken the ticket of the suspect in his possession. On the contrary, it is nowhere mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/4) that the suspicious baggage was opened in presence of the suspect and thereafter, he escaped. Thereafter, the bag and the suspicious packets were opened in presence of the suspect. The witness further claims to have taken the ticket of the suspect in his possession. On the contrary, it is nowhere mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/4) that the suspicious baggage was opened in presence of the suspect and thereafter, he escaped. In his testimony, Baldev Singh improved from the contents of his own written report and alleged that the suspect himself opened the bag and took out a Henna packet and also disclosed his name to be Kunj Ahmed. On the contrary, in the written report (Ex.P/4), it is not mentioned that the suspect disclosed his identity to the officer Baldev Singh. These significant improvements made by the witness in his evidence from the version as set out in his own written FIR have a material bearing on the reliability of his evidence. Baldev Singh, in his testimony, further claimed that the ticket of the suspect remained with him and he handed the same over to the SHO with the report. However, this assertion is totally falsified by the testimony of SHO (PW-8) Ranvijay Singh, who stated that he got a print out of the ticket taken from the airline staff at the Airport. In the FIR (Ex.P/4) and even in the detailed seizure memo (Ex.P/6), it is not recorded that the Security Officer Baldev Singh handed over the suspected passenger's ticket to the SHO Shri Ranvijay Singh. The seizure memo also records that the copy of the e-ticket was taken out from computer. This is indeed a vital circumstance which creates a great deal of doubt on the testimony of Baldev Singh. Had there been an iota of truth in the statement of Baldev Singh then, the ticket left behind by the suspect with him could have been the most vital piece of evidence so as to connect the accused with the seized contraband. 17. The witness Baldev Singh was specifically put a question in his cross-examination as to whether he disclosed the physical characteristics of the suspect to the SHO. In reply, witness admitted that he did not mention these attributes in the FIR (Ex.P/4) and police statement (Ex.D/1). Thus, the test identification proceedings conducted during investigation loose significance. The witness was also confronted during his cross-examination with his police statement (Ex.D/1) regarding the significant improvements viz. In reply, witness admitted that he did not mention these attributes in the FIR (Ex.P/4) and police statement (Ex.D/1). Thus, the test identification proceedings conducted during investigation loose significance. The witness was also confronted during his cross-examination with his police statement (Ex.D/1) regarding the significant improvements viz. his inquiry from the suspect passenger, opening of the suspicious bag in presence of the suspect, etc. He failed to offer any explanation for these improvements/ contradictions. Therefore, looking to the significant omissions contradictions and improvements appearing in the testimony of Baldev Singh, grave doubt is cast regarding the assertion made by the witness that he saw and identified the appellant Kunj Ahmed while placing the suspicious baggage on the X-ray Machine. The fact mentioned in the FIR that a passenger informed the officer that the suspicious baggage was of Kunj Ahmed is far too significant to overlook or ignore. From the said version as set out in the written report, it has to be concluded that it was another passenger who told the officer that the baggage had been placed on the belt by Kunj Ahmed. Thereafter, it is quite possible that Kunj Ahmed was named as the owner of the goods by drawing an interference from the fact that he did not travel in the flight. It is also significant to note that the subject matter is mentioned in the report as “unclaimed baggage on the X-ray Machine”. The investigating officer Don. K. Jose (PW-29), admitted in his cross-examination that the report (Ex.P/4) speaks of unclaimed baggage. Portion 'E to F' of the report wherein, it is recorded that a passenger identified that the baggage was of Kunj Ahmed was also put to the investigating officer Don K. Jose in his cross-examination. He admitted that he did not make any investigation regarding the said passenger. The investigating officer claims to have started investigation on the basis of mobile number mentioned on the e-ticket. He admitted that the mobile number was not issued in the name of Kunj Ahmed. Neither any mobile nor any sim was recovered from the appellant Kunj Ahmed during investigation. The witness further claims that he arrested the accused from the Calicut Jail. He was confronted with the arrest memo (Ex.P/16) and admitted that it is not mentioned in the document that the accused was being arrested from the Calicut Jail. Neither any mobile nor any sim was recovered from the appellant Kunj Ahmed during investigation. The witness further claims that he arrested the accused from the Calicut Jail. He was confronted with the arrest memo (Ex.P/16) and admitted that it is not mentioned in the document that the accused was being arrested from the Calicut Jail. This again is a very significant flaw in the prosecution story which cannot be ignored and puts the test identification proceedings under doubt. The security officer Baldev Singh (PW-2), gave a telephonic call to the Police Station Dabok which was recorded in the Rojnamcha Register of the police station which was marked as Ex.P-57A in the trial. All that is mentioned in this Rojnamcha entry is that a person abandoned his bag near the X-ray Machine and that the same might be containing suspicious packets. The name and the identity of the suspect was not mentioned in the Rojnamcha recorded on the basis of the telephonic information given by Baldev Singh as well. The Seizure Officer Ranvijay Singh (PW-28), also admitted during his cross-examination that he did not make any inquiry about the passenger who gave out the name of the suspect. 18. There is a serious dispute regarding the identity of the accused and therefore, the omissions in the FIR and the other circumstances noted above carry much importance and are virtually fatal to the prosecution case. 19. Thus, in light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to link the appellant Kunj Ahmed as being the person who placed the suspicious bag of the X-ray Machine of the Dabok Airport from which the contraband heroine was recovered on fateful day. (ii) Sanctity of Muddamaal and link evidence: 20. Coming to the argument that the prosecution failed to properly prove the Muddamaal at the trial. As per the seizure memo (Ex.P/6) and as per the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Baldev Singh (PW-2) and Ranvijay Singh (PW-28), three packets of contraband heroine were recovered from a trolley bag abondoned by the suspected passenger. It is recorded in the seizure memo that two samples each were taken out from three plastic bags containing contraband heroine and were sealed. There is no reference in the entire seizure memo regarding the fate of remaining contraband. It is recorded in the seizure memo that two samples each were taken out from three plastic bags containing contraband heroine and were sealed. There is no reference in the entire seizure memo regarding the fate of remaining contraband. It is mentioned in the seizure memo that the suitcase like bag in which blankets, bedsheets and Henna powder were lying, was sealed and mark 'D' was appended thereupon. There is no mention either in the seizure memo or the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that a suitcase was also seized by the seizure officer. The Muddamaal of the case was exhibited in the court during testimony of Baldev Singh (PW-2). The relevant portion of his statement while exhibiting the seized goods is very significant and is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:- ^^uksV%&eky[kkuk eaxok;k x;k] tks ,d lwVdsl vkSj ,d VªkWyh cSx esa can gSA VªkWyh cSx dks [kksyk] ftlesa dEcysa ,oa ,d iSdsV esgUnh dk fudykA VªkSyhcSx izn'kZ&vkVhZdy&1 gS] ftl ij yxh fpV ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lwVdsl dks [kksyk ftlesa ls iSdsV ekdZ&ch fudyk] tks vkVhZdy&2 gS] ftl ij yxh fpV ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA iSdsV ekdZ&lh vkVhZdy&3 gS] ftl ij yxh fpV ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA iSdsV ekdZ&, vkVhZdy&4 gS] ftl ij yxh fpV ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lSEiy ekdZ&lh1 izn'kZ vkVhZdy&5 gS] ftl ij yxh fpV ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lSEiy ekdZ&ch1 izn'kZ vkVhZdy&6 gS] ftl ij yxh fpV ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lSEiy ekdZ&,1 izn'kZ vkVhZdy&7 gS] ftl ij yxh fpV ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA** 21. Thus apparently, when the goods were exhibited in the Court, the trolley bag did not have any mark appended on it whatsoever. Three packets of Muddamaal, which were marked as A, B and C and the control samples which were marked as A-1, B-1 and C-1 at the time of seizure, were found packed inside the suitcase (Article 2). 22. As per the seizure memo, only one trolley bag was taken in possession by the SHO Ranvijay Singh on being presented by Baldev Singh. The seizure memo (Ex.P/6) clearly records this fact. Both Baldev Singh (PW-2) and the seizure officer Ranvijay Singh stated so in their sworn testimony. 23. 22. As per the seizure memo, only one trolley bag was taken in possession by the SHO Ranvijay Singh on being presented by Baldev Singh. The seizure memo (Ex.P/6) clearly records this fact. Both Baldev Singh (PW-2) and the seizure officer Ranvijay Singh stated so in their sworn testimony. 23. However, as noted above, when the Muddamaal was exhibited before the trial court during testimony of Baldev Singh (portion quoted supra), two articles were produced in the court one being a suitcase and one being a trolley bag. If at all, sanctity of the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged seizure is to be believed then, the remainder of the Muddamaal should have been found in the trolley bag. However, on going through the above quoted portion of the testimony of Shri Baldev Singh, it is evident that when the Muddamaal was produced in the court, the seized packets of contraband as well as the control samples were found inside a suitcase. When the trolley bag was opened, only blankets, bed-sheets and a Henna packet were found packed therein. The prosecution would try to project that the suitcase was inadvertently exhibited during the evidence of Baldev Singh and probably it was the one which was recovered from the house of Kunj Ahmed by the investigating officer Don K Jose. However, this argument would also be nothing but an exercise in futility because as per the trial court's observations, the chit appended on the suitcase also bears the signature of Baldev Singh. It is indeed a matter of surprise as to when only one piece of baggage from which the alleged contraband was recovered, was reported by Baldev Singh then, how two luggage, one suitcase and one trolley bag both bearing signatures of Baldev Singh came to be exhibited at the trial by way of Muddamaal of the case. This significant contradiction completely destroys the substratum of the prosecution case. Therefore, the entire prosecution case regarding the alleged seizure becomes highly doubtful. 24. Now, coming to the argument regarding breach in the link evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant accused urged that the prosecution failed to lead proper evidence to establish that the samples taken out from the seized contraband remained in the self-same condition right from the time of seizure till they reached the Forensic Science Laboratory. 24. Now, coming to the argument regarding breach in the link evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant accused urged that the prosecution failed to lead proper evidence to establish that the samples taken out from the seized contraband remained in the self-same condition right from the time of seizure till they reached the Forensic Science Laboratory. The material pieces of evidence required to be considered for appreciating this argument are the seizure memo (Ex.P/6), the statements of the Seizure Officer Ranvijay Singh (PW-28), the Investigation Officer (PW-29) Don K. Jose, the Maalkhana Incharge (PW-16) Mohan Singh and the Sample Carrier (PW-9) Kedarmal. In the entirety of documents exhibited by the prosecution pertaining to the seizure proceedings, there is no reference of any document bearing description “specimen memo of seal”. The seizure officer (PW-28) Ranvijay Singh SHO stated that he prepared a specimen memo of seal which was appended on the seizure memo and that such separate specimen memo of seal was also forwarded to the FSL. However, in his cross-examination, he conceded that no such document was available in the file. He also admitted that reference of any such specimen memo of seal was given in the seizure memo (Ex.P/6) and the Parcha Kaymi (Ex.P/42). 25. The I.O. Don K. Jose (PW-29), in his testimony, claims to have forwarded the samples to FSL with constable Kedarmal, however, he did not state as to the date on which the samples were so forwarded. The Maalkhana Incharge (PW-16) Mohan Singh, in his testimony, stated that he handed over the samples to constable Kedarmal (PW-9) for onward transmission to the FSL on 02.06.2008. Kedarmal brought back the receipt and handed the same over to him. Kedarmal (PW-9), the carrier of the samples, in his testimony, stated that he was given three samples of this case by Maalkhana Incharge on 02.06.2008. He proceeded to the S.P. Office and got prepared a forwarding letter, then he reached the FSL, Udaipur. By the time he reached there, the office had been closed and thus, he returned to the Police Station Dabok and redeposited the samples there. The samples were again handed over to him on 03.06.2008 whereafter, he proceeded to the FSL Jaipur and deposited the samples there. Thus, there is an apparent discrepancy of dates noticeable from the testimony of these witnesses. The samples were again handed over to him on 03.06.2008 whereafter, he proceeded to the FSL Jaipur and deposited the samples there. Thus, there is an apparent discrepancy of dates noticeable from the testimony of these witnesses. The Malkhana Incharge (PW-16) Mohan Singh did not state in his evidence that Kedarmal brought back the samples on 02.06.2008 and the same were redeposited in the Maalkhana and were then again handed over to Kedarmal on 02.06.2008. Therefore, there is a significant discrepancy regarding the condition of the samples in between the dates 02.06.2008 and 03.06.2008. It is also relevant to mention here that the FSL report (Ex.P/51), which is in a printed performa, mentions that the samples were properly sealed bearing impressions “which tallied with the specimen seal impressions forwarded separately” and the seals were intact. However, as mentioned above, in the entire prosecution evidence, no document bearing description of specimen memo of seal is referred to nor was exhibited. The forwarding letter (Ex.P/12) which was prepared at the S.P. Office also does not reflect that any specimen memo of seal was forwarded to the FSL along with the samples. No document in the form of a road certificate or a forwarding letter authorising the exit of the samples from the Police Station Dabok to the SP Office was exhibited and proved at the trial. The forwarding letter (Ex.P/12), being the only document available on the record in form of an authorisation for transit of the samples was prepared at the S.P. Office, Udaipur. Thus, attending documents to show the safe and authorised transit of the samples from the police station Dabok to the S.P. Office were not proved and exhibited by the prosecution. As noted above, there is a material discrepancy in the statements of the sample carrier Kedarmal (PW-9), the Malkhana Incharge and Mohan Singh (PW-16) regarding the safe keeping/ condition of the samples between 02.06.2008 and 03.06.2008. 26. In this background, this Court is of a firm opinion that the prosecution failed to lead proper link evidence so as to prove that the samples of the seized contraband remained in the self same and intact condition right from the seizure till they were received at the FSL. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined almost an identical controversy in the case of Ashok @ Dangra Jayaswal, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1335 and observed as below:- “10. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined almost an identical controversy in the case of Ashok @ Dangra Jayaswal, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1335 and observed as below:- “10. The seizure of the alleged narcotic substance is shown to have been made on March 8, 2005, at 11:45 in the evening. The samples taken from the seized substance were sent to FSL on March 10, 2005, along with the draft, Exhibit P.31. The samples sent for forensic examination were, however, not deposited at the FSL on that date but those came back to the police station on March 12, 2005 due to some mistake in the draft or with some query in respect of the draft. The samples were sent back to the FSL on March 14, 2005, after necessary corrections in the draft and/or giving reply to the query and on that date the samples were accepted at the FSL. From the time of the seizure in the late evening of March 8, 2005, till their deposit in the FSL on March 14, 2005, it is not clear where the samples were laid or were handled by how many people and in what ways. 11. The FSL report came on March 21, 2005, and on that basis the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused on March 31, 2005, but the alleged narcotic substance that was seized from the accused, including the appellant was deposited in the Malkhana about two months later on May 28, 2005. There is no explanation where the seized substance was kept in the meanwhile. 12. Last but not the least, the alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession of the accused, including the appellant was never produced before the trial court as a material exhibit and once again there is no explanation for its non- production. There is, thus, no evidence to connect the forensic report with the substance that was seized from the possession of the appellant or the other accused. 13. It may be noted here that in Jitendra and another vs. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 562 : ( AIR 2003 SC 4236 ), on similar facts this Court held that the material placed on record by the prosecution did not bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and it would be unsafe to maintain their conviction on that basis. In Jitendra (supra), the Court observed and held as under:- "The evidence to prove that charas and ganja were recovered from the possession of the accused consisted of the evidence of the police officers and the panch witnesses. The panch witnesses turned hostile. Thus, we find that apart from the testimony of Rajendra Pathak (PW 7), Angad Singh (PW 8) and Sub-Inspector D.J. Rai (PW 6), there is no independent witness as to the recovery of the drugs from the possession of the accused. The charas and ganja alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused were not even produced before the trial court, so as to connect them with the samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. There is no material produced in the trial, apart from the interested testimony of the police officers, to show that the charas and ganja were seized from the possession of the accused or that the samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory were taken from the drugs seized from the possession of the accused. Although the High Court noticed the fact that the charas and ganja alleged to have been seized from the custody of the accused had neither been produced in the court, nor marked as articles, which ought to have been done, the High Court brushed aside the contention by observing that it would not vitiate the conviction as it had been proved that the samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner in a properly sealed condition and those were found to be charas and ganja. The High Court observed, "non-production of these commodities before the court is not fatal to the prosecution. The defence also did not insist during the trial that these commodities should be produced". The High Court relied on Section 465, Cr.P.C. to hold that non-production of the material object was a mere procedural irregularity and did not cause prejudice to the accused. 6. In our view, the view taken by the High Court is unsustainable. In the trial it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of charas and ganja were seized from the possession of the accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchnama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act. In this case, we notice that panchas have turned hostile so the panchnama is nothing but a document written by the police officer concerned. The suggestion made by the defence in the cross-examination is worthy of notice. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses that the landlady of the house in collusion with the police had lodged a false case only for evicting the accused from the house in which they were living. Finally, we notice that the investigating officer was also not examined. Against this background, to say that, despite the panch witnesses having turned hostile, the non-examination of the investigating officer and non-production of the seized drugs, the conviction under the NDPS Act can still be sustained, is far-fetched." 14. The decision in Jitendra (supra) applies to the facts of this case with full force. 15. We, accordingly, hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charges and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the trial court and the High Court." 28. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court has no hestitation in reaching to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove (i) the identity of the accused Kunj Ahmed as being the suspect, who allegedly left behind the contraband heroine at the Dabok Airport on 10.05.2008, (ii) that contraband heroine was recovered from the trolley bag placed on the X-ray Machine by the suspect, (iii) that the samples taken out from the contraband remained in the self same condition right from the seizure till they were received in the FSL. 29. As an upshot of the above findings, this Court is of the firm opinion that the conclusions recorded by the learned trial court in its judgment dated 06.01.2011 while holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act are totally unjustified and were arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 30. 29. As an upshot of the above findings, this Court is of the firm opinion that the conclusions recorded by the learned trial court in its judgment dated 06.01.2011 while holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act are totally unjustified and were arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 30. As a consequence, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Special Judge (Sessions Judge), NDPS Cases, Udaipur whereby, the appellant Kunj Ahmed was convicted for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act is set aside. He is acquitted of the above charge and shall be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case.