Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.60 of 1997 Against the judgment dated 25.1.1997 passed by Shri Om Prakash Sinha, District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in sessions Trial No. 80 of 1995. Raju Ram son of Dhrup Ram, R.O.V Madhomath Chauchaka, P.S Kuchaikot, Dist-Gopalganj. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Adv. Mr. Suresh Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant have been convicted under Sections 22 and 23 of the N.D.P.S Act for the alleged possession of 11 Kgs Ganja in brief case and have been sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three years. However, no separate Section 22 of the N.D.P.S Act. The prosecution case is that the escort party while searching said boy sitting their and seeing the boy the escort party the boy tried to escape and then escort party apprehended the boy along with briefcase and found 5.5 kgs of Ganja in each of the packet in briefcase. On enquiry he discloses his name the escort party handed over the Ganja and the boy to the Officer-in-Charge of the railway police Station. On the said F.I.R lodged and investigation proceeded. After investigation the charge sheet submitted, cognizance taken and the charge was framed and trial proceeded. During the trial five witnesses named examined on behalf of the prosecution and during the oral and documentary evidence the order of conviction and sentence recorded as mentioned. Learned counsel for the appellant however contended that the appellant has denied to having possession of Ganja and since the recovery was made, from the railway bogies hence petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the said Ganja, the I.O has not been examined and the seized articles were neither seized nor sealed nor sampled nor were send for chemical examination and hence the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable . Learned counsel for the State conceded that there is no evidence regarding sealing & sampling of the ganja which was seized .He however, conceded that there is no chemical report and seized ganja was not sealed. Hence having regard to the fact that the seized article not having been sealed or sampled, there is violation of section 55 of the N.D.P.S Act which is mandatory requirement and there is no compliance of Rule. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case neither the seized articles were sealed nor sampled nor ever sent to the chemical analysist and hence the evidence that the alleged seized articles were ganja is absolutely misconceived and unless it is held that the seized articles were ganja the appellant cannot be convicted on mere suspicion without cogent and reliable evidence. Hence having regard to the facts and circumstances that since the seized articles were not established as ganja. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by Lower Court suffered from serious infirmity can well be inferred that prosecution has not prove the charges and hence order of convection and sentence is hereby set aside and appeal is allowed. Patna High Court, Patna, Dated the 4th July, 2011 NAFR/Prakash (Gopal Prasad, J.)