JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J.:- The appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Judge (for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) by upholding the prosecution plea that they were found in possession of unlicensed 120 kgs. of poppy husk in the area of village Bahowal on 20.11.1998 when the police party, acting on the basis of a secret information, apprehended them. The appellants were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. As apparent from a perusal of the testimony of the Investigating Officer, the party acted on a secret information which concededly was not reduced into writing. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused in Directorate of Revenue and another Vs. Mohammed Nisar Holia, [2007(5) Law Herald (SC) 3847] : 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 241. Of course, there were other lacunae as well in the prosecution version in that case. The fact that the secret information had not been reduced into writing was one of those. 3. The raiding party included an independent PW, namely Kimti Lal. In spite of his association with the police, the prosecution presentation is to the effect that the seal, after use, was retained by D.S.P. Ajaib Singh. In a such like case, the fact that the contents of the seized contraband are not tampered with till the analysis thereof by the Chemical Examiner is very relevant. The retention of the seal by the D.S.P., even in the presence of independent witness, raises doubts about the bona fide of the Investigating Officer. In that very context, it may be noticed that the independent witness was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. In all fairness, the prosecution could not have taken up itself the responsibility of adjudicating upon the character of the witness. It ought to have examined the witness and let the Court adjudicate whether the witness had been won over by the appellants or was indicating the truthful presentation in the context. In so far as the former part of the plea is concerned, the view obtained by this Court is supported by Balwinder Singh alias Billa Vs. It ought to have examined the witness and let the Court adjudicate whether the witness had been won over by the appellants or was indicating the truthful presentation in the context. In so far as the former part of the plea is concerned, the view obtained by this Court is supported by Balwinder Singh alias Billa Vs. State of Punjab, 1999(3) RCR (Criminal) 117. 4. On the own showing of the Investigating Officer, a joint notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon both the appellants. The adoption of such a course of action was deprecated by this Court in Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 293. It was held in that judicial pronouncement that the option to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate has to be given to each accused individually and not jointly. 5. In the light of foregoing discussion, the impugned finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge cannot be upheld. The appeal shall stand allowed. The appellants shall stand acquitted of the charge. They shall also be discharged of the bonds furnished by them. ————————