Judgment A.S.Garg, J. 1. Exactly 17 years ago i.e. on 10.8.1983, the police party headed by ASI Parkash, PW.3 comprising of Constable Mohinder Partap, PW.1 and Constable Harpal Singh, PW.2 intercepted the accused Bhupinder Singh on the turning of the back side of Arya College, in the area of Police Kotwali, Ludhiana, while he was carrying a bag in his right hand. His personal search was conducted which led to the recovery of opium wrapped in a waxen paper from the Jhola weighing 2 kgs. A sample of 10 grams of opium was taken out as sample and the remaining opium was put in a Dibba tin which was duly sealed and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA. Site plan Ex.PD of the place of recovery was prepared. Ruqa Ex.PC was sent to the Police Station and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was recorded. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner who vide his report Ex.PE declared the same to be opium. After completion of the investigation, the accused was put to trial. However, the accused was acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate observing that there was no satisfactory evidence to hold the accused guilty and accorded the benefit of doubt. 2. Not satisfied with the said order of acquittal, the State came up in the present appeal which is being resisted from the other side. 3. On a close recapitulation and scrutiny of the testimony of the police officials one cannot be distracted from the fact that there had been material discrepancies in the version projected by the witnesses as such. They even did not know as to from which route did they reach the place where the accused was arrested. They did not know how the bag in which the bulk of sample was kept was procured. All said and done, the witnesses even did not know as to who deposited the case property. There has been overwriting and cutting in the affidavits which generally result into a great doubt about the deposit of the case property as such. In such a busy locality of Ludhiana where the accused is alleged to have been apprehended, absolutely no effort was made to join an independent witness which led purely ex parte and camera proceedings against the accused. In such a busy locality of Ludhiana where the accused is alleged to have been apprehended, absolutely no effort was made to join an independent witness which led purely ex parte and camera proceedings against the accused. Their testimony could not inspire any confidence in their truthfulness because of the lapses pointed out above. Moreover, the affidavits Ex.PF and PG which were required to be properly verified did not adhere to the provisions of Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Chapter XII-B of Volume IV of the High Court Rules and Orders. 4. In view of the above discussion, the arguments of the learned Deputy Advocate General, are not convincing to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.