Judgment V. S. Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Ramji Lal (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Dabwali dated 3-9-1987 and of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, dated 11-3-1988. The learned trial Court held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.9 of the Indian Opium Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. An appeal was preferred which on its merit was dismissed. But the learned Sessions Judge had reduced the sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. The relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on 28-11-1984 Head Constable Gugan Ram accompanied by other police officials started checking a train which arrived from Hanumangarh side. It was to proceed towards Bathinda. It was stationed at Dabwali railway station at 11.14 a. m. The petitioner was seen alighting from the train and on seeing the police party had drawn back. On suspicion, he was stopped. On his search, he was found to be carrying 2-1/2 kgs of opium. Out of the same.20 grams was separated byway of sample. The sample and the rest of the opium was converted into separate parcels and taken into possession after sealing the same Ruqa was sent to the police on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Subsequently representative sample was sent for chemical analysis. Report was received that it was opium. 3. The learned trial Court had framed a charge for the offence punishable under Sec.9 of the Opium Act, After the trial the petitioner was held guilty for being in possession of the opium without any licence or permit and the above said order of sentence was passed. 4. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution witnesses and rejected the plea that public witness had not been examined or that it will affect adversely the prosecution case. The appeal on its merit was dismissed but sentence as such had been reduced. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Head Constable Gugan Ram, PW 1, and Constable Hart Singh, PW 2. They were the two eye-witnesses of the incident pertaining to the recovery of the opium weighting 2-1/2 kg. The appeal on its merit was dismissed but sentence as such had been reduced. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Head Constable Gugan Ram, PW 1, and Constable Hart Singh, PW 2. They were the two eye-witnesses of the incident pertaining to the recovery of the opium weighting 2-1/2 kg. It was reiterated by both the witnesses that they were checking the train bound for Bathinda when on suspicion the petitioner was apprehended and above said quantity of opium was recovered. 6. Petitionerts statement was recorded under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied the recovery from his person but has not produced any defence witness. 7. In the present case, recovery is stated to have been effected at Dabwali railway station. It was the admitted case that at the railway station large number of independent witnesses were available. But none of them were joined at the time of recovery or at the time when other investigation proceedings took place. It is true that it is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence which is material but by way of prudence it will always be necessary to join the independent witnesses. If in a particular case, independent witnesses have not been joined, plausible explanation should be forthcoming. That explanation for not joining independent witnesses that were available is not forthcoming. 8. One Pritpal Singh alias Preet Singh is stated to have been joined in the police party when the recovery was effected. During the course of evidence, he was not examined and the Public Prosecutor had made a statement that he has been given up to be won over by the petitioner accused. The material question that comes up for consideration is as to whether Pritpal Singh was ever joined in the police party or not. Only two official Witnesses have been examined with respect to the recovery. As regards the identity of Pritpal Singh, they made contradictory statements. They both stated that they knew Pritpal Singh but as regards the identity and place of residence they made statements which were not at all consistent. In fact, Pritpal Singh was described in the list of witnesses to be a resident of Ambala but it is not explained as to how he was present at Dabwali. They both stated that they knew Pritpal Singh but as regards the identity and place of residence they made statements which were not at all consistent. In fact, Pritpal Singh was described in the list of witnesses to be a resident of Ambala but it is not explained as to how he was present at Dabwali. Thus, it is very doubtful if Pritpal Singh was ever a member of such a police party. 9. When such is (sic) independent witnesses that were available were not joined and it is doubtful that the person named had ever been joined in the police party, the obvious conclusion would be that what is projected is not true. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of opium from the person of the petitioner accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. Revision allowed.