Judgment V. K. Batt, J. 1. Challenge herein is to order dated July 31, 1986 recorded by the learned Trial Court vide which petitioner herein was found guilty for having committed an offence under Sec.9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years as also to pay fine of Rs.1500.00 on in default of payment to fine to further undergo RI for two months. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of conviction and sentence, so recorded by the Trial Courts met with no success. 2. Briefly put it has been the case of prosecution that on August 20.1983 SI Man Singh accompanied by ASI Laskar Singh, Constable Gurmail Singh and some other Police officials, was on patrol duty. The Police party was coming in a government Jeep. When they reached near Mata Modi Chowk, petitioner was seen coming holding an attachi-case in his hand. He tried to slip awaywhich aroused suspicion. He was thus apprehended and on search of attachi-case.10 Kgs.250 gms of opium was recovered.20 grams of opium was separated as sample and packed in separate small tin box. The bulk opium was put in another big tin box and two separate parcels were prepared and sealed with the seal bearing impression LS. Recovery memo was prepared and information Ex. PA was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/i was recorded. 3. In order to bring home the offence against the petitioner, prosecution examined PW-1 Gurmail Singh. ASI, who had recorded formal FIR on receipt of ruqa Ex. PA. PW2 Laskar Singh, SI. PW-3 Constable Gurmail Singh and PW4 SI Man Singh have deposed about the apprehension of petitioner and suspicion recovery of io Kg.250 gms. of opium from his attachi that he was holding at the relevant time the prosecution also tendered into evidence report of Chemical Examiner. Formal affidavits. Ex. PE and PF were also tendered into evidence. 4. When examined under Sec.3i3, Cr. P. C. petitioner denied the incriminating material put to him and further stated that he was summoned to police station by SI Man Singh and asked to become a witness in a case against Smt. Shanti Devi of Uttar Pradesh. He refused to do so, upon which the police planted this case on him. In defence he examined MHC Gurjant Singh, DW-1 and Dev Singh DW-2. He refused to do so, upon which the police planted this case on him. In defence he examined MHC Gurjant Singh, DW-1 and Dev Singh DW-2. He also produced copy of judgment, Ex. DX. 5. After evaluating the evidence that was led by the prosecution and also the petitioner the learned Trial Court returned a finding of guilty against the petitioner and sentenced him in the manner, fully detailed above. As mentioned above appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of conviction and sentence was dismissed. 6. Mr. Markan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that affidavits. Ex. PF of Harkesh as also Ex. PE of Ramesh Chander were only tendered into evidence and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine Constable Harkesh and Ramesh Chander. It may be mentioned here that as per the prosecution version whereas Harkesh Constable had taken the sample of opium to the Chemical Examiner, Ramesh Chander was the person with whom case property was deposited by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel further contends that so much so even the affidavits of these witnesses were not put to the petitioner in his statement under Sec.313, Cr. P. C. If this essential formality was not observed by the prosecution, same shall be fatal inasmuch as link evidence shall be missing, further contends the learned counsel. For his afore stated contention, he relies upon a judgment of this Court in Zora Singh V/s. State of Punjab, which does support the contention of learned counsel. Learned State counsel was given an opportunity on the last date of hearing to rebut the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner or to cite a judgment that might have taken the view contrary to one reflected in Zora Singhs case (supra ). All that has been stated by learned State counsel today is that even the accused could have examined the two police officials, namely, Harkesh Constable and Ramesh Chander Head Constable by moving an application under Sec.296 (2), Cr. P. C. This contention of the learned State Counsel has necessarily to be rejected as it is too well settled that the prosecution has to stands on its own legs. There is no necessity for the accused to fill in the lacunae that are left in the prosecution case. Following the dictum of law laid down in Zora Singhs case (supra ). There is no necessity for the accused to fill in the lacunae that are left in the prosecution case. Following the dictum of law laid down in Zora Singhs case (supra ). I have no choice but for to set-aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below.50 ordered. Resultantly, present revision is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Revision allowed.