Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.115 of 1998 Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28. 02. 1998 passed by Sri Pramod Bahadur Mathur, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah, in Trial No. 17 of 1992 Ugam Sah, son of Bhola Sah, resident of Village-Deulia, Police Station- Enarwa (Mainatanr), District- West Champaran. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. For the Appellant : (1) Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate. (2) Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent State : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 20 (b)(1) and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. One lacs and on failure to pay the fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, both the sentences have run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as alleged that on 18. 10. 1987 while the appellant was going caught by G.R.P. staff along with a packet of Nepali ganja weighing 3.5 kg. 2 worth of Rs. 2100/- and was handed over to the Inspector, Custom (Prev) Circle, Bettiah and on the basis of which a complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The prosecution has examined six witnesses before charge and four witnesses after charge and on considering of this evidence, the lower court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant however, contends that, though, witnesses have supported the prosecution case that 3.5 kg. alleged Ganja was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Seizure list was prepared and seizure list report has proved as Ext. 1. However, it has been contended that neither seized article were ever sealed nor any sample of seized articles was taken or not sent to Forensic Science laboratory nor any report of Forensic Science laboratory was received. Hence it has not been established whether seized article was Psychotropic Substance for Ganja and hence order of conviction and sentence is not maintainable. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that ten witnesses were examined in this case, though, have 3 supported the prosecution case about recovery of alleged Ganja from appellant and proved the seizure list regarding seized articles. However, there is no evidence at all whether seized articles were sealed, though, it has come in evidence that 3.5 kg. Ganja seized by G.R.P. and was handed over to the Custom officer by the G.R.P. along with accused, but there is no evidence that seized articles were sealed nor the seized article ever sent to Forensic Science laboratory nor any report of Forensic Science Laboratory has been received or proved to establish the seized article was Ganja. 6. It is apparent that prosecution has not been able to prove the charge and hence order of conviction recorded by the lower court regarding Narcotic seized articles procedure followed for sentencing the appellant and hence order of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. Patna High Court The 26th July, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)