Cri. Appeal No. 254 of 2007 17-3-2008: Present: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, for the appellant. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 549 of 2007. State has moved the present application, seeking leave of the Court to file appeal against the judgment dated 15-7-2006 of the trial Court whereby the respondent, who was charged with and tried for an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, has been acquitted. According to the prosecution story, two persons namely, Gurmukh Singh (respondent in this case) and Inderjit Singh were intercepted by the Police on prior information that they were carrying some narcotic stuff and on search of their persons, opium was recovered. Thirty grams opium was recovered from the present respondent and twenty grams from his companion. Two samples were separated from the stuff recovered from the respondent and similarly, two samples were taken from the stuff recovered from his companion. Samples were marked S1 and S2 (in respect of the stuff recovered from the respondent) and S3 and S4 in respect of the stuff recovered from his companion. Samples were sent to the Chemical Laboratory by Head Constable Ranjeet Singh (PW1). He stated that he had sent a sample bearing Number 3 to the Chemical Laboratory through HC Kamal Chand (PW5). Head Constable Kamal Chand stated that he carried two samples bearing seal impression ‘R’. Report of Chemical Examiner Exhibit PW8/O shows that two samples were received but they bore no numbers, even though according to the prosecution version, the samples were marked S1 and S2 in respect of the stuff recovered from the respondent and S3 and S4 in respect of the stuff recovered from the respondent’s companion Inderjit Singh. Since the report Exhibit PW8/O does not show that the samples received were bearing any numbers, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the samples did not pertain to the stuff that was recovered from the respondent and his companion and in any case, the report is not connected with the stuff that was recovered from the respondent, because the samples which were taken from the stuff recovered from him, were marked S1 and S2 and the report does not show that any of the sample received from the concerned Police Station and to which the report Exhibit PW8/O pertains was marked S1 or S2. In view of the above said position, we do not find any merit in the State’s appeal. Hence the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is rejected. The application is dismissed accordingly. Criminal appeal No. 254 of 2007. Be entered in the relevant register to have not been admitted on account of dismissal of application for grant of leave to appeal. A note to this effect be made in the relevant register. (Surjit Singh), J. (Surinder Singh), J. March 17, 2008. (bm)