S. D. JHA, J, J. ( 1 ) CONVICT/appellant Onkar S/o Kishanji aged about 65/70 years, hereinafter called, 4the accused challenges his conviction under s. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (herein after called, the Actt) and sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs 1 Lac, in default three years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur at Neemuch Camp at Manasa by Judgment dated 9. 11. 1990. ( 2 ) THE accused was prosecuted by Jawad Police. Prosecution story is that Radheshyam (P. W. 8) A. S. I. at Nayagaon, Out post, at Jawad Police Station received information through informer that accused Onkar was carrying opium hanging the same in a bundle to the handle of the bicycle. Radheyshyam (P. W. 8) reduced this information to writing and with panchas apprehended accused. On his search in cloth bundle he was found carrying 650 Gms. of opium. Samples were taken out and the same were got examined by Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Sagar who found samples to be opium. Challan was put up against accused for offence under Ss. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. ( 3 ) ON 9. 4. 1990 accused pleaded not guilty to charge under Ss. 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act. In his examiation under 5. 313 Cr. P. C. he denied all material allegations. He stated that he was standing at Nayagaon Cross Road when he was taken to police station and arrested. He had not taken bicycle on hire and his name was got written by threatening cycle-shop owner. In his defence, the accused pleaded that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the case. He did not examine in defence any witness. He was convicted and sentenced as stated above. ( 4 ) AT the hearing of the appeal Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that whole case against the accused/appellant is false. Accused is aged 70 years and he does not at all know bicycling. He has been falsely involved in the case. He further stated that in this case there was no compliance with salutary provisions contained in S8. 50 and 57 of the Act which vitiated conviction of the accused. Independent witnesses had not supported the version given by Radheshyam (P. W. 8) as to compliance with 5. He has been falsely involved in the case. He further stated that in this case there was no compliance with salutary provisions contained in S8. 50 and 57 of the Act which vitiated conviction of the accused. Independent witnesses had not supported the version given by Radheshyam (P. W. 8) as to compliance with 5. 50 of the Act which was fatal to prosecution case. He also stated that Chemical examiner in the case had not been examined to prove that material allegedly seized from the accused was opium. In support of his arguments Shri Sharma relied on a number of decisions, such of them as are necessary and relevant would be referred to here-in-after. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh Shri S. M. Bapat learned Deputy Government Advocate defended the impugned judgment. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION in all examined eight witnesses Radhyeshyam (P. W. I) who is said to have given cycle on hire to accused, Bannappa (P. W. 3) who took seized samples of opium for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar, Satyanarayan Sharma (P. W. 4) head constable who accompanied Investigating Officer, to the place where the accused was apprehended carrying opium, Rajendra Rai (P. W. 5) head constable who kept seized opium in Mal Khana of the police station and later forwarded the same to FSL Sagar, Nathulal (P. W. 6) Patwari who drew the map, Subhash Dube (P. W. 7) A. S. I. who drew up formal FIR, got map prepared, seized the register maintained by Bhanwadal (P. W. 2) showing cycle being given on hire and Radhyeshyam 1. 0. himself, Radhyeshyam (P. W. I) attesting witness was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution. While he admitted his signature on seizure memo and Panchanamas Ex. P. /l to P/5, he denied the fact that opium was seized from the accused in his presence and he stated his, signatures were obtained at the outpost and not at the place where the accused was said to be apprehended. Bhanwarlal (P. W. 2) cycle-shop owner denied that he had given any cycle to the accused. The evidence of these two witnesses does not advance the prosecution case. Satyanarayan Sharma (P. W. 4) is the head constable who had accompanied Radhyeshyam (P. W. 8) to the place from where the quantity of opium is alleged to have been seized from the accused. The evidence of these two witnesses does not advance the prosecution case. Satyanarayan Sharma (P. W. 4) is the head constable who had accompanied Radhyeshyam (P. W. 8) to the place from where the quantity of opium is alleged to have been seized from the accused. While he supports Radhyeshyam (P. W. 8) on the point of the accused going on a bicycle towards Kesharpura and carrying opium tied to the handle of the bicycle in a dirty piece of cloth, on going through his statement it is seen that he does not speak a word about Radhyeshyam having told the accused that he had the option of being searched by the nearest gazetted officer of the Department or by the nearest Magistrate. If as claimed by Radhyeshyam (P. W. 8) that he had given notice (SUCHANA PATRA EX. P. /19) to accused informing him of the right to be searched by a Magistrate or gazetted officer of the Department were correct, Satyanarayan (P. W. 4) who is himself head constable in the Police station would not but mentioned the same. It is also significant that this SUCHANAPATRA does not bear signature of any attesting witness. Claim of Radheshyam (P. W. 8) to the above effect of his having informed the accused of his, right under S. 50 of the Act cannot be believed. ( 7 ) BHANWARLAL (P. W. 2) cycleshop owner who was declared hostile by the prosecution stated that he had not given bicycle on hire to the accused but he had given the same to one Mangilal Sutar. He also stated that he was intimidated by Thanedar and kept in custody and due to this intimidation he had made entry in Ex. P17 showing that bicycle was given on hire to the accused. ( 8 ) EXCEPT evidence of Satyanarayan (P. W. 4) head constable and Radhyeshyam (P. W. 8) there is no evidence as to seizure of opium from the accused. Even this evidence does not satisfactorily show compliance of mandatory provision under s. 50 of the Act as to accused having informed of his right of being searched by gazetted officer of the Department or the nearest Magistrate. Even this evidence does not satisfactorily show compliance of mandatory provision under s. 50 of the Act as to accused having informed of his right of being searched by gazetted officer of the Department or the nearest Magistrate. ( 9 ) IN Laxmibai v. State of M. P. 1 in absence of independent corroboration to the accused being in possession of opium and being unable to influence the witnesses (as in the present case), it was considered highly unsafe to base conviction of the accused on the interested testimony of police witnesses Similar view was taken in Madhunath v. State of M. P. 2 following Gendalal v. State of M. P. 3 and Laxmibai's case (supra ). In Usman Haidarkhan Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra4 where police officers had failed to comply with provisions contained in S. 50 and 57 of the Act, it was held that their evidence cannot be implicitly relied on to base conviction. ( 10 ) IN the present case the evidence of Satyanarayan (P. W. 4) and Radhyeshyam (P. W. 8) is. not corroborated by independent witnesses. Their evidence is doubtful on the point of compliance with 5. 50 of the Act in as much as Ex. P. 19 does not have signature of any other witnesses even Satyanarayan (P. W. 4 ). It is also doubtful whether the accused who is 70 years of age was riding the bicycle as claimed by the prosecution. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING all this, the offence under s. 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as to possession 650 Gms. of opium is held not satisfactorily established against the accused/appellant. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the accused/appellant are set aside. The accused in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed. .