JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This revision petition is directed by Teja Singh and Baldev Singh against judgment dated 7.2.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, vide which he found the petitioners alongwith Sheo Karan guilty under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 23.4.1983, Amir Singh, A.S.I. along with other police officials was present at G.T. Road, in the area of village Asse Khera in connection with Nakabandi. At about 3.30 A.M., Jeep bearing No. PNP-6307 came from the side of Sangria, which was being driven by Sheo Karan, whereas the other two persons i.e. the petitioners, Teja Singh and Baldev Singh were sitting by his side. Amir Singh, ASI, tried to stop the jeep by showing light to the jeep Driver but he did not stop and then ASI Amir Singh chased the jeep with the police jeep and at a distance of 200 yards, they over-powered the jeep. However, the petitioners alongwith their co-accused managed to escape. From the search of the Jeep, 11 gunny bags of poppy husk were recovered. Sample of 250 grams was taken out from each of the gunny bags for the purpose of analysis. 11 samples so taken and the gunny bags were separately sealed with the sale of BS and were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PA. 3. ASI Amir Singh sent Ruqa, Ex. PB, to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR, Ex. PB/1 was recorded. Later on, the petitioners alongwith their co-accused were arrested. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Report of the Chemical Examiner was obtained. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the Court. 4. Having made out a prima-facie case, the petitioners alongwith the co-accused, Sheo Karan, were charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Balbir Singh ASI and PW-2 ASI Amir Singh. 4. Having made out a prima-facie case, the petitioners alongwith the co-accused, Sheo Karan, were charged under Section 9 of the Opium Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined PW-1 Balbir Singh ASI and PW-2 ASI Amir Singh. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. PX and affidavits, Exs. PY and P2 of formal witnesses were also tendered in evidence. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the petitioners and their co-accused were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 7. After hearing the learned PP for the State and defence counsel, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali, vide judgment dated 10.3.1989 found them guilty and convicted them under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced as stated above vide order of the same date. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa. 9. Still dis-satisfied, Teja Singh and Baldev Singh have filed the present Criminal Revision. 10. I have heard Shri D.N. Ganeriwala, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sudhir Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for the State and carefully gone through the record. 11. The alleged recovery had taken place at 3.30 A.M. on 23.4.1983, when PW-2 Amar Singh, ASI, had intercepted the Jeep in the area of Village Asse Khera. However, the petitioners alongwith their co-accused were successful in escaping by jumping in the wheat field as it is stated that wheat of the height of 4-5 feet was standing in the nearby field. Upon the search of the jeep, 11 gunny bags were recovered. It is not the case of the prosecution that any electric bulb was burning there. It is difficult to identify the occupants of the jeep with torch light, especially from a distance. It is stated by both the witnesses that they knew the petitioners and their co-accused earlier. PW-1 stated that he knew all the three personally. However, he could not tell as to how he knew all the three persons personally. Admittedly, he had not investigated any case against them earlier. It is stated by both the witnesses that they knew the petitioners and their co-accused earlier. PW-1 stated that he knew all the three personally. However, he could not tell as to how he knew all the three persons personally. Admittedly, he had not investigated any case against them earlier. It is not the case that the petitioners alongwith other co-accused or any of them had approached PW-1 in connection with some case earlier. In fact, by merely stating that he knew them earlier, it cannot be said that he knew them earlier. Similarly, PW-2 Amir Singh stated that he knew them earlier but in cross-examination stated that no case was registered against them earlier in which he was the Investigating Officer. He also stated that he did not meet the petitioners and their co-accused earlier. Thus, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners and other co-accused were the persons who were in the jeep and had run away. 12. The 11 gunny bags produced in the Court did not contain any property number, name of the petitioners and their co-accused or FIR number. Thus, it cannot be said that the 11 gunny bags produced in the Court were the same which were allegedly recovered from the jeep on 23.4.1983. In such circumstances, in my opinion, no case is made out against the petitioners. Hence, they are given benefit of doubt. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is accepted and the impugned judgments of the Courts below are set-aside. The bonds of the petitioners are discharged and they are acquitted. Revision allowed.