Viney Mittal, J.

1. Petitioner-Balbir Singh has filed the present revision petition against the order dated December 19,1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated June 13, 1989. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar had convicted the petitioner Balbir Singh accused under Section 9 of the Opium Act for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in defualt thereof the accused was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. As per the prosecution case on August 16,1983, SI Mann Singh had effected a recovery of 3 kilograms of Opium from the possession of the accused. Out of the aforesaid Opium, a sample of 10 grams was separated and the remaining Opium was put into a tin and subsequently, on the completion of the investigation, a challan was presented. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class found the accused to be guilty of the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act and accordingly, convicted him as aforesaid. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar also failed.

3. Sh.Anil Ghandhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in as much as the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PD has not been put to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It has been further submitted that from the evidence on the record, it is not clear as to whether the seal with which the sample was sealed was never deposited with the M.H.C. and, therefore, possibility of tampering of the same could not be ruled out.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, Shri Ghandhari points out that it cannot be suggested that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all unreasonable doubts.

5. I find myself fully in agreement with the contentions raised by Shri Ghandhari. It is not shown from the evidence on the record that the seal with which the sample was sealed, was put in safe custody and that at no stage, the same was not available to the police. Under these circumstances, it cannot be suggested that there was no scope of tampering of the sample or of the recovered item.

6. Under these circumstances, the present revision petition is allowed. The judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge as aforesaid.