The judgment establishes the principle that the prosecution bears the heavy burden of proving the preservation of sealed samples and the sanctity of evidence, and failure to do so can lead to the benefit of a reasonable doubt for the accused.

1. This judgment shall govern Criminal Appeal No.1 081/2007 preferred by Sidhartha Gautarn, Criminal Appeal No.8/2008 preferred by Vinay Kumar and Criminal Appeal No.342/2008 preferred by Anil Gupta.

2. Appellants Sidhartha and Vinay were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (henceforth 'the Act') by judgment dated 3-11-2007 in Special Case No. 1/2007 by the Special Judge (under the Act), Bastar place Jagdalpur and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and also to a fine of Rs.l Lakh each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for transporting 183 kilograms of illicit Ganja in Santro Car No.MP 18C 1226 (henceforth 'the Santro Car') on 25-11-2006 near Gadsil Bhata Nala. The appeal preferred by Anil Gupta. i.e., the owner of the Santro Car is directed against the order of confiscation ofthe Santro Car by the impugned judgment.

3. Briefly stated prosecution's case is as under:

On 25-11-2006, Shri B.S.Nishad P.W.-4 S.H.O. of P.S. Keshkal received secret information at 8:50 A.M. that illicit Ganja was being brought from Jagdalpur in the Santro Car. After recording the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha No.945 EX.P-22 and sending information to his immediate superior vide Ex.P-l, he proceeded with witnesses Sampatram P.W.-l and Sadan P. W.-2 and staff to intercept the Santro Car. The police party stationed itself on the National Highway and saw the Santro Car coming from Jagdalpur. On being signaled to stop, the Santro Car escaped through the forest road, was chased and finally intercepted at Gadsil Bhata Nala. Appellant Sidhartha was driving the Santro Car while appellant Vinay was seated in it. It was found that the Santro Car was loaded with Gunny Sacks containing Ganja like substance. 11 Gunny Sacks containing Ganja like substance were found inside the Santro Car. Panchnan1a EX.P-7 was prepared. 2 samples of 50 grams each were lifted from each Gunny Sack and identification marks A-I to K-l were put on 11 sample packets. Weighment was done by Farsuram P.W.-3. Weight of the 20 sample packets of 50 grams each weight of Ganja in the 11 Gunny Sacks was 183 kilograms. The 11 Gunny Sacks and the 22 sample packets were sealed by Shri B.S.Nishad P.W.-4 with the seal of Police Station Keshkal. Specimen impression of the seal was affixed on Panchnama Ex.P-13 and EX.P-14. A mobile cell phone and Rs.200/- cash were seized from the appellant Vinay vide EX.P-15 and the Santro Car, Nokia Mobile, 11 sealed Gunny Sacks and 22 sample packets were seized vide EX.P-16 from the appellant Sidhartha. Specimen impression of the seal was also put on EX.P-16. The appellants Vinayand Sidhartha were arrested at 3 P.M. on 25-11-2006.

4. The 11 Gunny sealed bags of the 22 sample packets were entrusted for safe custody to Malkhana Moharrir of P.S. Keshkal Head Constable Ramesh Sahu P.W.-5 on 25-11-2006 for safe custody and kept in the Malkhana vide EX.P-35.

5. On 27-11-2006, 11 sample packets bearing identification marks A-I to K-l were sent for chemical analysis vide EX.P-31 to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Constable No. 156 Ajay Tekam, who delivered the sample packets A-I to K-l on 28-11-2006 at the Forensic Science Laboratory and obtained acknowledgment EX.P-32. Vide report EX.P-33 dated 6-1-2007 the Forensic Science Laboratory opined that all the sample packets A-l' to K-l contained Ganja. After completion of investigation, prosecution under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act was lodged against the appellants Sidhartha and Vinay on 19-1-2007. Muddemal, i.e., the 11 sealed Gunny Sacks and the remaining 11 sample packets was not produced with the challan before the Special Judge.

6. The appellants Sidhartha and Vinay abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Sampatram P.W.-l, Sadan P.W.-2 and Farsuram P.W.-3 did not support the prosecution case. Inspector B. S .Nishad P.W.-4 testified in