JUDGMENT 1. - Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on July 6, 1994 at 4.45 PM, P.W. 1 Bhupendra Singh, the then Station House Officer (SHO) Bheemganjmandi, Kota received a secret information to the effect that Smt. lqbal Begum, the present appellant, was possessing smack and selling the same in front of her TAPRI situated in Subjimandi at Kota. Shri Bhupendra Singh reduced the information into writing, Exhibit P.1, and informed his superior officers namely P.W. 5 Ravi Prakash, Circle Officer and the Superintendent of Police Kota and forwarded the written information as well to them through his Constable Bhagwan Singh. On receipt of such information from the SHO, P.W. 5 Ravi Prakash, C.O. reached the police Station Bheemganjmandi, Kota. The police party, headed by Shri Ravi Prakash, Circle Officer, and comprising of P.W. 1 Bhupendra Singh S.H.O. his subordinates P.W. 6 Sudhir Kumar, ASI, P.W. 2 Smt. Rehana, lady constable left in a jeep for the place where the appellant was stated to be selling smack. On reaching the Tapri of the appellant the witnesses found her sitting in front of her Tapri. P.W. 1 Bhupendra Singh, SHO, informed her about the possession by him of a secret information regarding possession of smack by her and that he wanted to search her person. He, therefore, enquired her as to whether she would like to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or of a Gazetted Officer, who P.W. 5 Ravi Prakash, Circle Officer also was. It is alleged that on the appellant's consent to be searched in presence of Shri Ravi Prakash, C.O. and since independent witnesses could not be procured, Smt. Rehana, the lady constable conducted search on her person and discovered a match box tied in her DUPTA. The match box was containing some black substance which, on examination by the witnesses, was suspected to be Psychotropic substance. The same was duly seized and sealed. On weighing the substance alongwith container, its weight has been recorded as 520 Mg. The seized substance as well as the appellant were taken to the police station. The seized material was handed over to P.W. 8 Om Prakash, the then Malkhana Incharge. The same was duly seized and sealed. On weighing the substance alongwith container, its weight has been recorded as 520 Mg. The seized substance as well as the appellant were taken to the police station. The seized material was handed over to P.W. 8 Om Prakash, the then Malkhana Incharge. On 15.7.1994 P.W. 4 Shabbir Ahmed carried the said sealed packet to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan at Jaipur where on micro chemical examination of the substance in the sealed packet, the Assistant Director of the State laboratory opined that the sample gave positive test for the presence of Diacetyl morphine (Heroin) but the alcoholic extract of the cigarette foil did not i give positive test for the presence of diacetyl morphine (Heroin). Shri Bhupendra Singh S.H.O. after conducting the preliminary investigation handed over the same to P.W. 3 A.U. Siddique, ASI. 2. On trial of the appellant on the basis of the above facts the learned Spl. Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 8 r/w. Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act), convicted her as such and sentenced her to R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lack or in default for further R.I. for two years vide his judgment and order dated 6.9.1995, which is under appeal before this Court. 3. Shri Subhash Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that since offences under the Act attract deterrent punishment giving no discretion to the Court to be lenient to the offender irrespective of his age, sex or any other factor, the evidence put forth by the prosecution before the Court in such cases is required to be critically examined from the point of view as to whether the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 41, 42, 50 etc. of the Act have been satisfactorily complied with or not. Mr. Jain submitted that in the present case the appellant is stated to have been keeping in her possession and selling the psychotropic substance in a densely populated area and search was allegedly effected at day time when usually a large number of inhabitants of the locality are found at such place, but no independent witness was associated with the search and seizure proceedings in the present case. Mr. Mr. Jain submitted that it was against normal human conduct that none of the persons, who are alleged to have gathered at the time of the search and seizure proceedings, would either not try to come to the help of the appellant or of the police party. It was thus submitted that the evidence against the appellant, consisting of the police officials only, should not be believed as a basis for the conviction of the appellant in the present case. In this behalf Mr. Jain relied upon the cases of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 (31) ACC 351 (SC) and of this Court in Paruar Singh v. State of Raj., S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 482/1996, decided on 6.3.1998 and Nadeem v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 RCC 650 . 4. The learned P.P. however, submitted that the prosecution case can not be thrown away on the sole ground that no independent witnesses could be examined by the prosecution in support of its theory in the present case. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that quality and not quantity of the evidence is required to be looked at to prove the existence of an incriminating fact as per provisions contained in Section 134 of the Evidence Act. He further submitted that in the present case the testimony of the police officials suffers from no blemish or any infirmity and, therefore, the learned Spl. Judge has rightly believed such evidence. The learned P.P. further submitted that the testimony of police witnesses is as good as that of other independent persons and, therefore, simply on the ground that independent witnesses could not be available and examined in the present case, the prosecution case should not be held as not proved beyond doubt. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me on both sides and have closely examined the evidence placed by the prosecution on the record of the lower court at the trial of the appellant. 6. It needs no emphasis that the offence under the Act are grave in nature and looking to their gravity provisions for imposition of deterrent punishment of the offender of the Act have been made. 6. It needs no emphasis that the offence under the Act are grave in nature and looking to their gravity provisions for imposition of deterrent punishment of the offender of the Act have been made. Looking to the deterrent punishment prescribed for the offence against the Act it becomes necessary that the evidence putforth by the prosecution before the Court should be examined and scrutinised very closely before finally holding the appellant guilty of offence under the Act. 7. I fully agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that quality and quantity of the evidence is required to prove a fact in a given case. But the quality of such evidence must be of sterling worth. Conviction for an offence may be recorded against an accused on the basis of solitary evidence, provided that such evidence is found trustworthy, reliable and of sterling worth, it is also true that there is no rule of law of evidence that a police officer can not be good witnesses in a police case. The Courts have not favoured the practice of making the informant of the case as an Investigating Officer also in that case. However, simply because the informant happens to be investigator into a case his testimony can not be altogether rejected on that ground. The substance of all such principles is that the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the guilt of the accused must satisfy the conscious of the Court and must be trustworthy and reliable. 8. In the cases relied upon by Mr. Jain it was emphasised that non-compliance of a certain mandatory provision of the Act may vitiate the trial of the offender under the Act. The view so expressed in Balbeer Singh' case appears to have been considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Prithvi Chand and another, 1996 (2) SCC 37 wherein it was laid down that noncompliance of mandatory provision does not affect the value of evidence in search cases. In view of that position of law on searches made in the cases under the Act we go to appreciate the prosecution evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial of the appellant. 9. In view of that position of law on searches made in the cases under the Act we go to appreciate the prosecution evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial of the appellant. 9. The prosecution theory as has been narrated above, has been fully stated in sufficient detail at the trial by P.W. 1 Bhupender Singh, SHO, P.W. 2 Rehana Constable, P.W. 5 Ravi Prakash C.O. P.W. 6 Sudher Kumar ASI and P.W. 7 Ratan Singh. The substance of the statement of these police witnesses is that on the receipt of the secret information at the police Station they had gone to the Tapri of the appellant where, on search of her person, she was found possessing psychotropic substance weighing 500 ml. The main objection advanced on behalf of the appellant is that no independent witness who was or, could have been, easily available to the police, was associated in the search and seizure proceedings. As stated above the secret information is alleged to have been received at the police station at 4.45 P.M. On going through the record of the proceedings made at the police station, I find that a minute to minute record of the progress of the case was maintained in Exhibit P. 2. It is in evidence that the police Station Bheemganjmandi is located in densely populated area of Kota and independent witnesses could have been easily available to witness the proceedings of search and seizure in the case. The police party had left the police station in the Jeep and they could have easily taken some independent witnesses to witness the search and seizure proceedings. Further it is in evidence that the Tapri of the appellant was located in another densely populated area and was surrounded by about 50-60 houses. The time was around 5.00 P.M. when the inhabitants of the locality usually remain at their houses. The appellant herself was stated to be sitting out of her house at that time. It is also in evidence that on seeing the police party reaching there the appellant had made no efforts either to enter into her Tapri or to make her escape good from that place. That would not have been the normal conduct of a guilty person. It is also in evidence that on seeing the police party reaching there the appellant had made no efforts either to enter into her Tapri or to make her escape good from that place. That would not have been the normal conduct of a guilty person. Then again, it does not appeal to our reasons that nobody from that densely populated locality would come forthwith either to help a lady in distress or the police to assist them. At least the members of the family of the appellant would certainly like to protect her or to come forward in her defence. The prosecution case is that one Bharat Singh constable was sent to call for some independent witnesses. The said Bharat Singh constable was not examined at the trial and no explanation for not producing him at the trial was also offered. Then again the appellant is stated to have consented to her search in the presence of P.W. 5 Ravi Prakash C.O. and thereafter she was searched by P.W. 2 Smt. Rehana. Her consent is stated to have been reduced to writing on Exhibit P.6. P.W. 1 Bhupendera Singh SHO admitted that the thumb impression marks on Ex. P. 6 not indicate as to whose thumb impression marks they were. Nothing has been written on such thumb impressions. On being questioned by the defence he first stated that the contents of consenting written note were written by his Munshi. But then he improved over his such statement and stated that P.W. 7 Ratan Singh Constable had made that writing. When P.W. 7 Ratan Singh was examined he did not state that the impugned writing had ever been made by him. 10. It is also pertinent to note that though Bhupender Singh had maintained minute to minute record of the proceedings regarding compliance of the provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the Act but strangely enough he did not make any record of the arrival of the police party alongwith the appellant and seized material to the police station. The seized material is though stated to have been deposited with P.W. 8 Om Prakash Malkahana Incharge and who stated to have delivered the same to P.W. 4 Shabbir Ahmed on 15.7.94 but it is strange on the Malkhana register in token of such fact while making the delivery of such important piece of evidence to him. 11. The seized material is though stated to have been deposited with P.W. 8 Om Prakash Malkahana Incharge and who stated to have delivered the same to P.W. 4 Shabbir Ahmed on 15.7.94 but it is strange on the Malkhana register in token of such fact while making the delivery of such important piece of evidence to him. 11. In view of the above position of facts, attending on the search and seizure and arrest proceedings in the case and also keeping in mind that the appellant was an illiterate lady, the prosecution evidence, in the absence of corroboration from independent evidence can not be accepted as it admits of reasonable doubt in it. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set-aside and the appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 8/18 of the -Act. She would be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******