Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The State of Punjab has filed this appeal against acquittal of the respondent Satnam Singh in case FIR No. 407 dated 18.12.1984 under Section 9(1) of the Opium Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred as `the Act) registered at Police Station Nawanshahr. 2. The alleged occurrence in this case took place on 18.12.1984. As per the prosecution, on that date, Inspector Swaran Singh received secret information that accused Satnam Singh was in possession of poppy husk and if raid is conducted, the same could be recovered from him. After registration of formal FIR, the police party proceeded to the place of occurrence. No independent witness was associated. The accused was seen placing chaff (Tandas) in the fields and on seeing the police party, he allegedly ran away. He was alleged to be identified by Inspector Swaran Singh as he was known to him being a bad character of Police Station Nawanshahr. On search of the Tandas, 123 bags of poppy husk were recovered. Recovery memo of the contraband, rough site plan were prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After investigation, the challan was filed in the Court. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined HC Inderpal Singh as PW-1 and Inspector Swaran Singh as PW-2. Report of Chemical Examiner and two affidavits were also tendered in evidence. 4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent denied all the allegations and pleaded that nothing was recovered from his possession. He further pleaded that the alleged place of occurrence neither belongs to him nor he was in possession of the same. In support of his plea, he placed on record copy of Jamabandi as Ex. DA in his defence. 5. After considering the evidence led by both the parties, the trial Court acquitted the respondent, while recording the following findings :- (i) No independent witness was associated before effecting the alleged recovery. As per the prosecution case, the chowkidar accompanied the police party and he pointed out the fields of the accused, from where the recovery was effected. However, the said chowkidar has neither been cited as a witness nor any reference to this effect has been made in the FIR or the recovery memo. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the prosecution for non- joining of independent witness. (ii) There are many infirmities in the prosecution evidence. However, the said chowkidar has neither been cited as a witness nor any reference to this effect has been made in the FIR or the recovery memo. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the prosecution for non- joining of independent witness. (ii) There are many infirmities in the prosecution evidence. (iii) The prosecution has not produced the best documentary evidence to show that the accused was a person of bad character. (iv) No attempt was made for holding an identification parade. (v) It has not been proved that the accused was in conscious possession of the poppy husk. (vi) There are numerous discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. I have heard counsel for the appellant-State and have perused record of the case. The alleged occurrence in this case took place in the year 1984. Counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is not the case of the State that some material evidence has been mis-read or has not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the facts, which have been taken into consideration by the trial Court acquitting the accused. Thus, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not require any interference in this appeal. Dismissed.