Judgment O.P. Bishnoi, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused who was found guilty under Section 8/17 of the NDPS Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar vide Judgment dated 2 1-5-1987. The appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac and for non-payment of fine simple imprisonment for one year, 2. According to the prosecution story on 3-12-1985, the SHO Police Station Sadar, Ganganagar PW-2 Sukhdev Singh was on beat with Constables Ramesh Kumar (PW-3), Jeevan Singh (PW-4), At about 5 p.m. they noticed the accused near Janata Cold Store and searched him. He was found carrying 50 gms. of opium, A case under Section 9 of the Opium Act was registered which resulted into the challan of the accused under Section 8/17 of the NDPS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. PW-1 Jeewan Ram, PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, PW-4 Jeevan Singh and PW-5 Satpal, all police personnel were examined in support of the prosecution story. No defence evidence was led. The case resulted in conviction as indicated above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the appellant has been framed falsely in the case. He was actually arrested under Section 109 of the Cr. P. C. and thereafter, in the police station it was decided to frame him for the offence under Section 8/17 of the NDPS Act. The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to defend the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court. 5. Aspointed out earlier, all the five witnesses are police personnel. PW-2 Sukhdev Singh SHO, PW-3 Ramesh Kumar and PW-4 Jeevan Singh, both constables, have deposed about the alleged recovery. PW-5 Satpal is said to be the ‘Malkhana’ Incharge. PW-1 Jeevan Ram, Constable has stated that he carried the sealed sample for chemical examination to Jaipur. Needless to say that no effort was made to have an independent witness before the alleged recovery was effected, It has come in evidence that the place of recovery was a thoroughfare and lot many people were corning and going both ways. It is an admitted position that Sukhdev Singh made no effort to ask any independent person to witness the search. It is an admitted position that Sukhdev Singh made no effort to ask any independent person to witness the search. In a case where the minimum sentence awardable is 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac, it cannot be said that conviction without independent corroboration is safe, It is also an admitted position that Sukhdev Singh registered the FIR and he also investigated the case and filed the challan. In such cases the investigation officer is usually different from the one who effects the recovery. 6. It hascome in the testimony of PW-1 Jeewan Ram that he received the sealed packets from Kashiram, who at that point, of time was incharge of the ‘Malkhana’, Kashiram has not been examined. It, thus, cannot be said that the sample remained intact during the period when Kashiram was the incharge of the ‘Malkhana’, In the cross-examination of PW-2 Sukhdev Singh it has come that the Site Plan (Ex. P/2) has no connection with reality. He has admitted that the canal, where the recovery allegedly took place is situate on the Western side of the road, whereas actually it is situate on the Eastern side. This provides strength to the defence argument that the entire proceedings were concluded while sitting in the police station. 7. Moreover, there is no evidence worth the name to suggest that the mandatory provisions of the Act were complied with. Sukhdev Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Jeevan Singh do not say that compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was made in the case. No notice, oral or written, was given to the accused prior to his search. It is also admitted that compliance of Section 55 of the said Act was also not made. Similarly, no detailed report of the alleged recovery was transmitted to the higher officers as provided under Section 57 of the Act. On account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions alone the appellant is entitled to acquittal. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. The judgment of the trial Court, consequently stands set aside