JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of State of Rajasthan assailing the judgment dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.69/2006, whereby learned trial court has acquitted the accused - respondents Mohan Lal and Vikram Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act respectively. 2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents and perused the judgment impugned dated 25.2.2009. The material available on record of the learned trial court was also looked into. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the fact of recovery of 2 kg. & 60 grms. opium from accused Mohan Lal was properly proved. During investigation, it was found that this quantity of opium was purchased by Mohan Lal from Vikram Singh. He submits that the judgment impugned suffers from legal infirmity and hence, the same is liable to be quashed and setaside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-persons has stated that learned trial court has critically analyzed the evidence, ocular as well as documentary and has arrived at a right conclusion that the charges framed against the accused-persons are not proved. He submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the arguments advanced by both the sides, I have perused the material available on record and scanned the judgment impugned in light of the evidence and arguments stated above. 6. On perusal of the record, it is apparently clear that no independent witness was made by the investigating officer in the case in regard to the seizure of 2.60 kgs. opium from accused Mohan Lal. The prosecution witnesses PW-1 Rameshwar Prasad and PW-3 Ramkumar the police personnels, have admitted in the cross-examination that the place of recovery is about 5 kms. from police station Bakani. It is also an admitted fact that there were so many villages situated between these two places but no independent witness of seizure of opium was made. 7. Another flaw in the prosecution evidence is that seal having impression of letter "ARC", which was used on the seizure memo Ex.-P/2 is said to have been destroyed on the spot of seizure vide memo Ex.-P/6 at 5:35 p.m. on 7.3.2006. Despite this, how the same seal was affixed on malkhana register Ex.-P/21, is beyond comprehension. 7. Another flaw in the prosecution evidence is that seal having impression of letter "ARC", which was used on the seizure memo Ex.-P/2 is said to have been destroyed on the spot of seizure vide memo Ex.-P/6 at 5:35 p.m. on 7.3.2006. Despite this, how the same seal was affixed on malkhana register Ex.-P/21, is beyond comprehension. PW-1 and PW-3 have stated that the malkhana register was not taken to the recovery spot. They have also stated that the seal was destroyed on the spot. Then the malkhana register, which was kept at police station Bakani, cannot have impression of the seal on Ex.-P/21. This seal impression on Ex.-/21 clearly shows that there is something fishy and unreliable in the proceedings conducted by the investigating officer. 8. Further, the contraband seized from accused Mohan Lal is said to have been resealed at police station Bakani, vide Ex.-P/5. But it does not bear the signature of investigating officer PW-5 Asha Ram. It is also important to note that the contraband seized from the accused Mohan Lal have not been produced in the prosecution evidence before the trial court. Had the packets containing malkhana articles of contraband been produced during the trial, the defence side could have availed the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in whose presence, this contraband was alleged to have been seized. 9. The most important ambiguity, which goes to the root of the matter is that PW-5 Asha Ram says that two samples of 30 grams each of the seized opium were packed in the pouches of "Mirage Tobacco" and thereafter, were sealed after putting them in two different containers (dibbis) having the name of 'Rasna' and 'Rimzim' Pan Masala. But the FSL report Ex.-P/10 does not mention that the samples were found packed in the containers of 'Rasna' and 'Rimzim' Pan Masala. This ambiguity creates a serious doubt as to whether the samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination in intact position or not. The possibility of changing the package or tinkering with the sample cannot be ruled out in the above situation. 10. All these issues have been elaboratory discussed by the learned trial court in the judgment impugned. This ambiguity creates a serious doubt as to whether the samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination in intact position or not. The possibility of changing the package or tinkering with the sample cannot be ruled out in the above situation. 10. All these issues have been elaboratory discussed by the learned trial court in the judgment impugned. On the basis of such infirmities, it has been found by the learned trial court that the investigating officer has not properly conducted the investigation proceedings right from seizure of the contraband from the accused - Mohan Lal uptill the samples were sent to FSL for chemical examination. On the basis of such infirmities, it has not been found proved beyond doubt that the seizure of 2 kg. & 60 grms. opium was made from the possession of accused Mohan Lal. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that there was not even iota of evidence that the said opium was purchased by Mohan Lal from co-accused Vikram Singh and thus he was involved in the offence as abattoir or conspirator. 11. In light of the discussion made above, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found in the said impugned judgment and it does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no sufficient evidence available on record to hold the accused-respondents guilty of the charges framed against them. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed while upholding the judgment impugned dated 25.2.2009.