A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal presented under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 11/4/1991 rendered by Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S. T. No. 114/90, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, the Actt) and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of two years. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated that the facts of the case are that on 19/1/1990, S. S. Chouhan (P. W. 5) received the information from the informer about possession of illicit opium. He prepared panchanama to this effect and forwarded the information to higher authorities. Thereafter, he formed raid party and went to the Railway Station. Two independent witnesses Kamalsingh (P. W. 3) and Prakash (P. W. 4) were included in the raid party. At about 11. 00 p. m. the appellant was seen coming. He was having a bag in his hand. The appellant was apprised of his right as regards formalities pertaining to search. He, however, consented and agreed that search could be taken by P. W. 5. Accordingly, the bag was searched. This bag contained opium. On weighment, the bag was found to contain 880 gms. opium. Two samples of 30 gms. were drawn and sealed. The appellant was arrested. The property and the appellant were brought to Police Station. The property was kept in Malkhana. The offence was registered. One sealed packet was sent for chemical examination to Sagar. The report Ex. P/10 confirmed that article was opium and contained Morphine of 3. 02 per cent. On completion of investigation, the challan was filed. The appellant was charged under Section 8/18 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. On evaluation of the evidence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri Jaisingh learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri N. K. Sharma learned Penal Lawyer for the State. ( 4 ) EX. P/2 is the seizure memo. The contraband article (880 gms. opium) is said to be recovered from the bag hung on the hook fixed on the left shoulder of the appellant, on 19. 1. 1990 at about 11. 00 p. m. Ex. ( 4 ) EX. P/2 is the seizure memo. The contraband article (880 gms. opium) is said to be recovered from the bag hung on the hook fixed on the left shoulder of the appellant, on 19. 1. 1990 at about 11. 00 p. m. Ex. P/8 is the registration of the crime on 20. 1. 1990 at 0. 30 hrs. Ex. P110 is the report of chemical analyser. Ex. P/i is the record of the information which led to Seizure. The prosecution examined the witnesses as under: (a) P. W. 1 Ratansingh, Constable and P. W. 5 S. S. Chouhan A. S. I. , i. e. departmental witnesses. (b) P. W. 3 Kamalsingh and P. W. 4. Prakash independent witnesses who did not support the prosecution version and were declared hostile. (c) P. W. 2. Prabhashankar, Constable and P. W. 6. Rajkishore Singh, Head Constable whose evidence is of little assistance. ( 5 ) IN Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has laid down that officer laying the trap must seriously endeavour to secure really independent and respectable witnesses, so that the evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence. This caution, despite gravity of offence, is totally overlooked as P. W. 1 deposed thatprakash Patrakar Hai Aur Aksar Thanepar Aata Rahta Hai, Kamal Mochi Bhi Aksar Thane Par Aata Rahta Hai P. W. 3 Kamalsingh admitted that he was made witness in 5/10 cases earlier by the police (para 3 ). This then is the quality of so called independent witnesses introduced to witness such a serious accusation. In Hiralal v. State of Haryana, it is held that: Amir Singh, on his own admission, has appeared as a prosecution witness four or five times in police cases pertaining to this Police Station. The evidence of such a witness can hardly carry any value in Court. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 and P. W. 5 do not inspire confidence. It seems unsafe to act on their uncorroborated version. Ex. P/2 does not mention about the observance of formalities of giving personal search. Ex. P/1, consent for search, is too artificial to be believed. This is the illation inferable from the intimity of the prosecution version. ( 7 ) THE evidence is thus of undependable nature. It seems unsafe to act on their uncorroborated version. Ex. P/2 does not mention about the observance of formalities of giving personal search. Ex. P/1, consent for search, is too artificial to be believed. This is the illation inferable from the intimity of the prosecution version. ( 7 ) THE evidence is thus of undependable nature. An extra suspicion is introduced because P. W. 5 S. S. Chouhan, besides the claim of being an eye-witness, played the role of investigator as well. Bhagwan Dayal Piarey v. The State, is pertinent. ( 8 ) THE NDPS Act, enacted in 1985, has a laudable purpose to serve and is intended to corn bat the menace otherwise bent upon destroying the public health and national wealth. The provisions have been made more rigorous through amendment in 1989. The crime is thus, fouler and as such, the degree of its proof must be higher. The guilty must be in but the impecsant ones must be out. Law and Justice cannot be distant neighbours. Legality and logicality must shake hands. In Onkar v. State, it is held as under:in Laxmibai v. State of M. P. , 1988 (I) MPWN Note No. 137, in absence of independent corroboration to the accused being in possession of opium and being unable to influence 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 Madhavnath v. State of M. P. (1990 (I) MPWN Note No. 166) following Gendalal v. State of M. P. , (1988 (I) MPWN Note No. 215) and Laxmibais case (supra ). ( 9 ) IN these facts and circumstances of the case, doubt is not dispelled and its benefit then goes to the appellant. In the result; I find that conclusion reached by the Trial Court is not on firm foundation and should suffer the fate of reversal. Accordingly, I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquit the appellant of the charges. The appellant is in custody. He shall be set at liberty, if unwanted in connection with any other offence. The record of the Trial Court shall be returned. Appeal allowed. .