Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Babu Singh, S/o Surain Singh, against the judgment dated February 16, 1989 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-. An appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated May 18, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on May 6, 1985 ASI Gulzar Singh in the company of other police officials was going in a Government jeep from Village Phulewala to Village Ghanda Banna and Sandhu Khurd on the direction of DSP for checking of opium etc. and when the police party reached the bridge of canal minor near a school, the petitioner and one another person were found going carrying gunny bags on their heads to Village Ghanda Banna. On seeing the police party, they tried to slip away and on suspicion they were apprehended. The case of the prosecution is that on the search of gunny bag carried by the petitioner Babu Singh, 25 kilograms of poppy husk and 2-1/2 kilograms of opium were recovered. Samples were taken and after investigation, a challan was presented. The petitioner has been convicted as aforesaid. 3. Shri T.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution itself, it was not a case where the police had come across the petitioner by some chance or that the alleged recovery was a chance recovery. It was pointed out that it was an organised police party for checking of opium but still the police party did not choose to join any independent witness. Again it has been pointed out that the place where the alleged recovery of opium is stated to have taken place was thoroughfare and, therefore, it was natural that there were many passersby, but none of them has been joined in the recovery. It has been further pointed out that there were major discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, who were all police officials. 4. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that there was no requirement of law that a police party must comprise of an independent witness. It has been further pointed out that there were major discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, who were all police officials. 4. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that there was no requirement of law that a police party must comprise of an independent witness. Shri Sharma maintains that the conviction can be sustained even on the statement of the official witnesses alone. 5. I have no doubt that conviction can be maintained on the basis of statements of official witnesses alone. However, when a police party has an opportunity to join independent witnesses, but does not choose to do so and merely relies upon the statement of the official witnesses, then statement of such official witness have to be viewed with a greater caution to find out as to whether the guilt of an accused has been brought home. In such circumstances, it has to be seen as to whether there were discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses. Certain glaring discrepancies have been pointed out to me by Shri T.S. Sangha. When the prosecution evidence comprises of merely official witnesses and there are major discrepancies in their statement, then it is for the Court not to put reliance on their sole testimony for ordering the conviction of the accused. The present petition is allowed and after setting aside the judgments of the learned Courts below, the conviction of the petitioner is set aside. Petition allowed.