JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard Ms. Ruby Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant vide judgment dated 12.09.2006 passed under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentence passed on 16.09.2006 under Section 20 (b) (i) of N.D.P.S. Act by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharswan at Seraikella in connection with Nimdih P.S. No. 02/2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 01/2004 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant of the present case Birendra Kumar (Sub-Inspector) while posted at Nimdih Police station, on 04.01.2004 at 11.30 AM, he along with other police personnel had proceeded to village Bamni and when they reached there, they received a secret information that an accused belonging to the village ketunga had grown opium crop in the back side of his house and also got the information that after harvesting the crops he had kept the same inside his house. The informant along with other police personnel searched the house of the accused in presence of independent witnesses and found that 40 plants of opium were planted in the back side of the house of the accused which was ready for harvesting. Seven bundles of dried opium were kept beside the accused who was also present there and when the informant asked him to produce the valid document for the same, he was unable to produce any document. 4. On the basis of written report given by the informant of the present case Nimdih P.S. Case No.02/2004 District Seraikella was registered under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the investigating officer for the offences punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. After conclusion of trial the appellant was held guilty and sentenced for the offences under Sections under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. against which the present appeal has been preferred. 7. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the investigating officer for the offences punishable under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. After conclusion of trial the appellant was held guilty and sentenced for the offences under Sections under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. against which the present appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the alleged material was never sent for F.S.L. laboratory and learned trial court passed the conviction and sentence against settled principle of law and also failed to appreciate the vital omission and commission in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. 8. On the other hand, learned Add.P.P appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has properly apprised the evidence available on record. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant. This appeal has no merits which fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the records of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of the arguments raised on behalf of both the sides. 10. It appears that F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of written report filed by the informant (Sub-Inspector) stating inter alia that he got secret information that the accused belonging to the village Ketunga had grown ganja crop in the back side of his house and after harvesting Ganja plants had kept the same inside his house. After that, the informant along with other police personnel arrived at the house of the accused and in presence of the independent witnesses namely Sujit Kumar Mahato and Parsuram Mahto resident of village Ketunga searched the house of the accused and found 40 plants of Ganja were standing in the back side of the house of the accused and those plants were ready to harvest. As many as seven bundles of dried ganja had been kept beside the accused. At the time of search, the accused was asked to produce the papers relating to said ganja, but the accused was unable to produce any document in support of ganja recovered. 11. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspect of the case. As many as seven bundles of dried ganja had been kept beside the accused. At the time of search, the accused was asked to produce the papers relating to said ganja, but the accused was unable to produce any document in support of ganja recovered. 11. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspect of the case. It is apparent that the seized item was never sent to forensic lab for examination There is no concrete evidence to conclusively prove that the recovered and seized material from the possession of the appellant was opium (ganja) or not. Seizure list witnesses have also been turned hostile. Therefore, the whole prosecution story is doubtful and the conviction and sentence of the appellant appears to be absolutely illegal and not justified which is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 12. Appellant is on bail. Hence, he is discharge from the liability of bail bond. Sureties are also discharged. 13. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.