Judgment V. S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, dated 18-12-1995 and of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dated 22-7-1987. The learned trial Court had held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.9 (a) of the Opium Act (for short the Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300.00 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The relevant facts are that on 29-1982 Inspector Darshan Singh was present at the police station, Nihalsinghwala. A secret information was received that Gurmail Chand Melu sb Dhart Ram; Harbans Lal sb Bhupinder Kumar resident of Himmatpura and Amar Singh son of Nazar Singh resident of the same village had formed a group. They were indulging in smuggling of poppy husk at large scale at the premises of Mai Shanti widow of Prem Singh r/o Himmatpura. The secret information was that if a raid is conducted poppy husk could be recovered in large quantity. On this information, Darshan Singh, Inspector along with Gurmit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Gurdev Singh Sub Inspector. Gurcharan Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, besides other members of the police staff formed a raiding party. Inspector Darshan Singh was heading the said party. They reached near village Machhike. One person came on A Royal Enfield motor cycle. Another person was sitting on the pillion with a gunny bag in his hand. That matter was taken over by Sub Inspector Gurdev Singh. Inspector Darshan Singh along with other persons went to the tube-well of Mai Shanti. Amar Singh met the police party. Amar Singh had made a disclosure statement that he could get recovered of bags of poppy husk at the tube-well of Mai Shanti. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, he led the police party and got recovered 17 bags of poppy husk each weighing 45 kg.250 grams from each of the bag was taken as a sample. The samples and the remaining bags were converted into separate sealed parcels which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Harbans Lal managed to escape. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, he led the police party and got recovered 17 bags of poppy husk each weighing 45 kg.250 grams from each of the bag was taken as a sample. The samples and the remaining bags were converted into separate sealed parcels which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Harbans Lal managed to escape. In the meantime, from the motor cycle also poppy husk weighing 20 kg was recovered and in the same manner sample and the rest of the poppy husk were converted into separate sealed parcels and taken into possession vide recovery memo. 3. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga, framed the charge punishable under Sec.9 (a) of the Opium Act. The plea of the accused was that they were innocent. There was a party faction in the village. They were arrested from the village and thereafter were falsely implicated. 4. The learned trial Court on the appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that poppy husk was recovered from the petitioners and accordingly the abovesaid impugned judgment and order were passed. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed. 5. At the time of arguments none has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. In the grounds of revision, it has been pointed out that there were two separate recoveries from two separate petitioners at different places and, therefore, there could not be a joint trial. However, the entire argument has to be examined on the touchstone of prejudice. If no prejudice is caused to either of the petitioners the argument as such must fail. Herein the witnesses were examined and cross-examined with little objection at the appropriate time. Once the matter as such has been examined and fair trial conducted, it is too late in the day to float such an argument. 7. In the present case, a secret information had been received at the police station. No public witness had been joined. The reason for non-joining the public witness is not forthcoming. The argument put forward by the learned Additional Advocate General. Punjab, that if public witness had been called, the accused persons would have escaped, is not of such avail. 7. In the present case, a secret information had been received at the police station. No public witness had been joined. The reason for non-joining the public witness is not forthcoming. The argument put forward by the learned Additional Advocate General. Punjab, that if public witness had been called, the accused persons would have escaped, is not of such avail. There was sufficient time and while the police party proceeded, the public witness could be joined on the way. It does not show that no public Witness was available. But if public witnesses are not joined in the peculiar facts, then it would create a serious flaw in the prosecution case. In fact, each case has to be examined on its merit. In a given case, official witnesses can be believed and their evidence can be acted upon. But, herein, the explanation forthcoming is not convincing. The absence of public witness cannot be ignored. 8. This has not to be seen in isolation. Herein, link evidence in the form of the persons who took the sample to the public analyst and of the normal witness who is incharge is missing. Their affidavits had been tendered in evidence. The record does not show that they were present for cross-examination. Not only that, their affidavits did not indicate as to what part of the paragraph is true to their knowledge and which of the paragraph was true to their belief. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Leela Singh1. A Division Bench of this Court held as under: We have gone through the records of the case and we find that the necessary link evidence is other defective in law. Exhibit PE is the affidavit of MHC Darbara Singh and Exhibit PF is the affidavit of Constable Sukhdev Singh. Both these affidavits bear the verification that the contents of the affidavits were correct. It is not mentioned therein which part of the affidavit was correct according to the knowledge and which part belief. Thus the affidavits being ignored from consideration the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused by connecting the incriminating article with him. Thus we find no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate. Thus the affidavits being ignored from consideration the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused by connecting the incriminating article with him. Thus we find no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate. T Similar was the view expressed by this Court in the case of Kewal Singha alias Keba V/s. State of Punjab2. Therein, it was held as under: TTIn the instant case the affidavits of formal witnesses are not properly verified and as such this evidence is to be discarded from consideration. In the absence or link evidence, it cannot be said that the sample taken from the alleged recovered substance remained intact and was not tampered with till it was deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner. The case of the petitioner is thus rendered suspicious and conviction of the petitioner cannot be maintained. 9. Same is the position in the present case. As referred to above the affidavits are not in conformity with the provisions of law and, therefore, link evidence is missing. When examined in the totality of the facts, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of sentence are set-aside granting the petitioners the benefit of doubt. Revision allowed.