JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This appeal has been directed by Mella Singh against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala, whereby he was found guilty for keeping in his possession 80 Kgs of Poppy Husk contained in two bags and convicted under Section 15 fo the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. one lac; in default of payment fine he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 5.6.1997, S.I. Paramjit Singh along with Jagjiwan Singh, H.C. Chajju Singh and some other officials held Naka at bus adda Chowk, Badshahpur. He received a secret information that the appellant was in the habit of indulging in the sale of poppy husk and if a raid was conducted, poppy husk could be recovered from him. Believing the information to be reliable, SI Paramjit Singh sent ruqa Ex. PC to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded by M.H.C. Satnam Singh. Thereafter, the police party proceeded towards village of the appellant. In the way, on the bridge of Boota Singh Wala, Gurdeep Singh Ex-sarpanch met and he was joined in the police party. Then the police party reached the house of the appellant in village Dedhna. The appellant was found present there. SI Paramjit Singh gave him option whether he wanted to get his house searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but the appellant declined the offer and expressed confidence in SI Paramjit Singh. His consent statement Ex. PD to that effect was recorded. On interrogation, the appellant disclosed that he had kept concealed and buried two bags each containing 40 Kgs of poppy husk in Chaff in his room about which he only knew and could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex. PE was reduced into writing which was signed by him and attested by the witnesses. Thereafter, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered two bags of poppy husk. 250 Gms was taken out as sample from each of the bags. The sample packets and the residues in the gunny bags were separately sealed with the seal of PS and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. Thereafter, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered two bags of poppy husk. 250 Gms was taken out as sample from each of the bags. The sample packets and the residues in the gunny bags were separately sealed with the seal of PS and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH attested by the witnesses. The residue poppy husk on weighment in each of the two bags was found to be 39 Kgs. 750 Gms. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PJ of the place of recovery. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. Outside the house of the appellant, SI Paramjit Singh produced the case property along with witnesses and the appellant before SI Gobinder Singh who verified the investigation and sealed the case property and affixed his own seal bearing impression GS on the sample as well as residue contained in the gunny bags. After reaching the police station, he deposited the case property which MHC Satnam Singh with the seals intact. After receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PK, challan was put up in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. Having made out a prima face case, the appellant was charged under Section 15 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove, the allegations, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. 5. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 6. After hearing learned P.P. for the State and the learned defence counsel, the learned Special Judge, Patiala vide his judgment dated 4.12.2000 found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 15 of the Act, and sentenced him vide order of even date as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has filed the present appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.C. Bhardwaj, learned AAG Punjab and carefully gone through the file. 9. The independent witness namely Ex-sarpanch Gurdeep Singh has not been examined. He was given up as won over by the prosecution. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has filed the present appeal. 8. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.C. Bhardwaj, learned AAG Punjab and carefully gone through the file. 9. The independent witness namely Ex-sarpanch Gurdeep Singh has not been examined. He was given up as won over by the prosecution. The only inference is that had he been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution version. The seal after use was not handed over to Ex-sarpanch Gurdeep Singh. It is a matter of abundant caution that seal after use is handed over to an independent witness. The very fact that seal after use was not handed over to an independent witness only suggests that he was not joined in the police party and his signatures were obtained afterwards. This fact makes the prosecution story doubtful. 10. There is a material discrepancy in the testimony of official witnesses. PW ASI Jagjivan Singh stated that Ex-sarpanch Gurdeep Sing was joined in the way to village Dedhna. He did not state that he was joined on the bridge of Boota Singh Wala, but PW5 SI Paramjit Singh had stated that he was joined on the bridge of Boota Singh Wala. He further stated that this bridge was at a distance of 3 Kms from village Dedhna. Thus, this witness was joined not on the way of village Dedhna but on the bridge of Boota Singh Wala. In fact this discrepancy suggests that this witness was not joined at all and his signatures were obtained afterwards. 11. It is true that ruqa Ex. PC was sent by SI Paramjit Singh on receipt of secret information and on the basis of it, FIR was registered but the FIR does not indicate that information regarding registration of the case was sent to the superior police officers. Thus, the provisions of section 42 of the Act were not complied with. Reference in this regard may be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kaka Singh, 2001(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 674. 12. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home charge against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Reference in this regard may be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kaka Singh, 2001(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 674. 12. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home charge against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and order are set aside and the appellant is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed.