Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. The cases relating to the alleged recovery of contraband substances which are covered under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are very serious in nature and once the case against an offender is proved he is liable to serious consequences by way of sentence. Such cases are expected to be investigated by the police agency in such a manner that the evidence collected during the enquiry and investigation is ipso facto inspiring confidence in its truthfulness. Otherwise, the purpose of the enforcement of such an Act would be defeated as well as entire investigation would result into miscarriage of justice. 2. In the given case out of three respondents, two, namely, Sutjit Singh and Babu Singh were apprehended while coming on a camel cart on 31.8.1986 near village Dhapali, in the area of Police Station, Phul by the police party head by SI Harbans Lal P.W.1 comprising Constable Gurcharan Singh No. 206, P.W.2 another Constable Gurcharan Singh No. 112 and Constable Gurpal Singh No. 358. These two respondents were said to be sitting on the camel card but since Sadhu Singh respondent who was driving the camel cart ran away on seeing the police party. From the cart, 35 bags Ex. P2 to P36 each containing 45 Kgs. of poppy husk were allegedly recovered. 100 grams of poppy husk was taken from each bag as sample. The sample and the remaining bags were sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB. Sadhu Singh respondent who allegedly escaped from the place of occurrence was arrested later on. This alleged capture was made on the basis of secret information. On receipt of secret information ruqa Ex. PA was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PA/1 was recorded. The contents of the sample sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis were found to be that of poppy husk as per report Ex. PE. The respondents were put to trial. 3. At the trial the respondents claimed that they were taken from their respective houses and were falsely involved in this case. The learned trial Judge found that the prosecution version was false and frivolous and, therefore, acquitted the respondents. 4. The State has come up in appeal which is being resisted from the other side. 3. At the trial the respondents claimed that they were taken from their respective houses and were falsely involved in this case. The learned trial Judge found that the prosecution version was false and frivolous and, therefore, acquitted the respondents. 4. The State has come up in appeal which is being resisted from the other side. As already indicated above such cases are required to be enquired into in a manner which reflects that the duty of the police has actually been performed by the Sub Inspector heading the police party in due course and nothing looks abnormal or out of the way or unbelievable. In the case in hand, in the initial investigation it did not come that one of the accused had escaped. It did not come into evidence that as to whether the weighing scales were procured and who had managed the same. Obviously, without the weighing scales the weight of the poppy husk could not be measured. The police did not join any independent person on receipt of the secret information. No person either a Sarpanch or otherwise was called from village Dhapali which was stated to be one Kilometer from the place of recovery. None of the police officials even knew the name of the Sarpanch of the village. The police party before proving the presence of the accused also must show their own presence because it was claimed that the police party was in an official matador. The purpose of presence of the police party near the said village cannot be presumed ipso facto. 5. The information with the police was that the gunny bags were lying in the fields. They did not conduct any raid in the fields to capture the bags. It is unbelievable that after such a secret information if the bags had been lying in the fields, the accused would have dared to bring the same in a camel cart. So in fact a feeble evidence has been collected by the police. In the absence of independent witness the trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.