Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Pritam Singh appellant has been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act) for a mere recovery of 5 Kilograms and 100 grams of poppy husk. FIR (Exhibit PC/1) was lodged at police station Dharamkot. 2. It is stated therein that on 4-1-1992 appellant Pritam Singh was seen coming on foot with a bundle of gunny bag on his head. On seeing the police party, he got perplexed and attempted to turn back. On suspicion, he was apprehended. On inquiry he disclosed his name, parentage and address. The search was conducted in which 5 Kgs and 100 grams of poppy husk was recovered. 3. Author of the FIR, SI Fauja Singh appeared as PW-1. During cross- examination, he admitted that they were going from Dharamkot towards Chughan Kalan and the same is a thoroughfare. He also admitted that Dharamkot is a township. He further admitted that he did not join any independent witness at Dharamkot nor any one in the way. 4. To corroborate his testimony, the prosecution has examined Constable Tarsem Singh as PW-2, who admitted that while leaving towards Dharamkot, SI Fauja Singh did not ask to join any independent witness. 5. PW 3 Surjit Singh SI has stated that the sample and the contraband were produced before him. In cross-examination, he admitted that the case property was not deposited with the Moharrir Head Constable. He further admitted that Register No. 19 is maintained regarding deposit of case property in the Malkhana and regarding the present case, there is no entry in the same as the case property remained in his possession. 6. This Court depreciates the conduct of the investigating agency as the case property was not deposited in the Malkhana. To wriggle out of this, SI Surjit Singh ( PW-4) has mustered colour to show that there is no entry in Register No. 19 as the case property was not deposited with any authority and it remained with him. PW-1 Fauja Singh has stated that it is correct that in column No.2 of Register No. 19, his name has been recorded with the name of SI Surjit Singh against serial No. 1178. 7. PW-1 Fauja Singh has stated that it is correct that in column No.2 of Register No. 19, his name has been recorded with the name of SI Surjit Singh against serial No. 1178. 7. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the recovery in the instant case is very meagre. Various instances have also been reported in this part of the Country where police officials falsely implicate innocent persons by foisting small quantity of contraband. The entire case of the prosecution raises suspicion and it is not safe to rely upon the investigating agency especially when regarding deposit of the case property the conduct of the investigating agency is not trustworthy. It was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer and the Additional SHO to deposit the case property in the Malkhana. 8. In the present case, the very conduct of the Investigating agency in not joining the independent witness when the recovery was effected from a place which is a thoroughfare, also puts this Court on guard not to rely upon these witnesses. Therefore, by granting benefit of doubt to the appellant, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Court below is set-aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The appeal stands allowed.