JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 10.11.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ only) and sentenced him, 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 the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year, for having been found in possession of 1 Kg. 250 grams opium (now falling within the ambit of non­ commercial quantity), without any permit or licence. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.6.1996, Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO, alongwith other police officials, in a Govt. vehicle bearing No.PB-13-B-1601, was present in the revenue limits of village Papra, in connection with holding a picket, when Gurcharan Singh S/o Diwan Singh, was also joined, in the police party. At that time, the accused came from the side of village Lehalkalan, on metalled path. He tried to retreat, on seeing the police party. On suspicion, he was apprehended. The search of the bag, being carried by him, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law, which yielded the recovery of 1 Kg.250 grams opium. Two samples of 10 grams each, were separated therefrom, and put into the separate small containers. The remaining opium was also put into a separate container. The samples, and the container, containing the remaining opium, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 18 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO (PW-1), Swaranjit Singh, ASI (PW-2), Surinder Kumar, HC (PW-3), and Karnail Singh, Constable (PW-4). The Addl. Charge under Section 18 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO (PW-1), Swaranjit Singh, ASI (PW-2), Surinder Kumar, HC (PW-3), and Karnail Singh, Constable (PW-4). The Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, tendered into prosecution evidence, Ex.PF, report of the Chemical Examiner, and, thereafter, closed the same. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. It was stated by him, that in fact, he came with truck No.GJ-6T-4417, and Ashok Mohan, ASI, searched the said truck near the barrier of Moonak. It was further stated by him, that Rs.20,000/- were recovered from his pocket, by Ashok Mohan, and when he demanded back the said amount, from him, he (Ashok Mohan) told him that he would be taken to the Police Station, where he would be taught a lesson. It was further stated by him, that he was taken to P.S. Moonak, and falsely implicated, in the instant case. It was further stated by him, that he was transporting P.T .Powder in the said truck, from Bombay to Hoshiarpur. It was further stated by him, that his mother was called from Hoshiarpur telephonically, through the driver of the truck, by Ashok Mohan, and Rs.15,000/- more were taken by him, for the release of the truck. He, however, examined Som Nath (DW-1), Devinder Singh (DW-2), Jatinder Kumar, ASI (DW-3), Hari Dass (DW-4), and Barjinder Singh Jassar (DW-5), in his defence. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State; the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that though according to Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO, the Investigating Officer, Gurcharan Singh S/o Diwan Singh, independent witness, was joined with the police party, yet neither he was examined, nor was given up by the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, as won over or unnecessary. He further submitted that, as such, the best evidence, in possession of the prosecution, was withheld, by it. He further submitted that, on account of non-examination of Gurcharan Singh, independent witness, an adverse inference can be drawn, that had he been examined, he would not have supported the prosecution case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. It is, no doubt, true that the Public Prosecutor for the State, is the master of the case. It is for him to decide, as to which witness, he wants to examine, and which witness, he wants to give up. However, such a discretion, is required to be exercised, by the Public Prosecutor for the State, on the basis of sound judicial principles. He cannot exercise such discretion arbitrarily, and capriciously. Had this witness, been given up, as won over, for valid reasons, it would have been said, that the Public Prosecutor for the State, exercised the discretion vested in him, on the basis of sound judicial principles. The evidence of this witness, was very material, especially in view of the fact that the accused, took up the plea that he was falsely implicated, as Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO, felt annoyed, when he demanded back the amount of Rs.20,000/- recovered from his personal search, as also obtained a sum of Rs.15,000/- more from his mother, for releasing the truck. In view of the such serious allegations, raised by the accused, against the Investigating Officer, it was incumbent upon the Public Prosecutor for the State, to examine Gurcharan Singh, independent witness, as his evidence could be said to be of great importance, to throw light, on the true facts of the case. In Masalti Vs. In view of the such serious allegations, raised by the accused, against the Investigating Officer, it was incumbent upon the Public Prosecutor for the State, to examine Gurcharan Singh, independent witness, as his evidence could be said to be of great importance, to throw light, on the true facts of the case. In Masalti Vs. State of UP, 1965 SC 2002, a four Judge Bench of the Apex Court, held that it is, undoubtedly, the duty of the prosecution to lay before the Court, all material evidence, available to it, which is necessary for unfolding its case, but it would be unsound to lay down, as a general rule, that every witness must be examined, even though, his evidence may not be very material, or even if, it is known that he has been won over or terrorised. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, reveals that the witness whose evidence is material to unfold the case of the prosecution, must be examined, until and unless, he has been won over or terrorized. As stated above, in the instant case, the evidence of Gurcharan Singh, independent witness, in view of the serious allegations, levelled against the Investigating Officer, was very material to unfold the prosecution case. There is no evidence, on the record, that he was either won over, or terrorized by the accused. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority is, therefore, fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Non-examination of Gurcharan Singh, independent witness, therefore, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, in view of the facts and circumstances, enumerated above. The trial Court, however, failed to take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in holding that the accused committed the offence. On account of the aforesaid reason, the case of the prosecution became highly doubtful. 10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that though the alleged recovery was affected on 25.6.1996, yet the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 8.7.1996, i.e. after a delay of 13 days. On account of the aforesaid reason, the case of the prosecution became highly doubtful. 10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that though the alleged recovery was affected on 25.6.1996, yet the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 8.7.1996, i.e. after a delay of 13 days. He further submitted that no explanation was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, for such a delay, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner, as a result whereof, the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out, especially when the seal was taken back by the Investigating Officer from Gurcharan Singh, independent witness, on the next day of recovery. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. No explanation, whatsoever, has been furnished, by the prosecution witnesses, with regard to the delay of 13 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. It is the duty of the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that none tampered with the sample, till the same reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. Since, the sample was allegedly sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, after 13 days, it could not be safely held that the same remained un-tampered with. This fact casts a shadow of doubt, on the case of the prosecution. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [2006(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1006] : 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 611, there was a delay of 14 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, it was held that the possibility of tampering with the sample, could not be ruled out, and the link evidence was incomplete. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted, in that case. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme Court), the contraband remained in the Malkhana for 15 days. The malkhana register was not produced, to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana, till the sample was handed over to the Constable. In these circumstances, in the aforesaid case, the appellant was acquitted. In Ramji Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme Court), the contraband remained in the Malkhana for 15 days. The malkhana register was not produced, to prove that it was so kept in the malkhana, till the sample was handed over to the Constable. In these circumstances, in the aforesaid case, the appellant was acquitted. In Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 452, the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 72 hours, and the seal remained with the police official, and had not been handed over to any independent witness. Under these circumstances, it was held that this circumstance would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the prosecution could lead other independent evidence, to prove that none tampered with the sample, till it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. The other evidence produced by the prosecution, in this case, to prove the link evidence, is not only deficient, but also unreliable. In these circumstances, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The delay of 13 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner, and non-strict proof, by the prosecution, that the same was not tampered with, till it was deposited in that office, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being correct, is accepted. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the sample impression of the seal, was never deposited with the MHC, nor handed over to the Constable, for deposit in the office of the Chemical Examiner, alongwith the parcel. He further submitted that, as such, it could not be said that the seal on the sample was the same, as was affixed at the time of the alleged seizure. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, the possibility of tampering with the sample, until it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. He further submitted that, on account of this reason, the possibility of tampering with the sample, until it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. Surinder Kumar, HC (PW­ 3), with whom the case property and the samples were deposited, did not speak even a single word, that the sample impression of the seal was deposited with him, by Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO. He did not speak even a single word, that he handed over the sample impression of the seal to Karnail Singh, Constable, for deposit, alongwith the sample, in the office of the Chemical Examiner. Similarly, Karnail Singh, Constable (PW-4), did not state even a single word, in his statement, that he was handed over the sample impression of the seal, in this case, for deposit in the office of the Chemical Examiner. It means that neither Karnail Singh, Constable, was handed over the sample impression of the seal, nor he deposited the same, in the office of the Chemical Examiner. Since, he did not deposit the sample impression of the seal, in the office of the Chemical Examiner, it is not known, as to how on Ex.PF, the Chemical Examiner, recorded a certificate that the seals on the parcel, were intact and agreed with the sample seals sent. Such certificate of the Chemical Examiner, therefore, does not appear to be correct. Under these circumstances, it could not be said, as to whether, the sample was received in the office of the Chemical Examiner, with seals intact, and, as to whether, the said parcel bore the same seal, as was allegedly affixed by the Investigating Officer, on the same. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58. (Supreme Court), the sample seal was not sent to the Laboratory, at the time of sending the sample parcel. The Apex Court, held that the case of the prosecution was doubtful, on account of this reason. In this view of the matter, the case of the prosecution also became doubtful. The trial Court, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. 12. The provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were not complied with. In this view of the matter, the case of the prosecution also became doubtful. The trial Court, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. 12. The provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were not complied with. No report was sent by the Investigating Officer, to his Superior Officer, with regard to the alleged apprehension of the accused, and the alleged recovery of contraband, from him. No doubt, the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, are directory in nature. That does not mean that the same should not be complied with, by the Investigating Officer, deliberately and intentionally. In Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2001(1) RCR (Crl.) 702 (S.C.), it was held that non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 52,55 and 57, which are, no doubt, directory and violation thereof, would not ipso-facto vitiate the trial or conviction. However, the Investigating Officer, cannot totally ignore these provisions, as such failure will have bearing on the appreciation of evidence, regarding search of the accused, and seizure. The object of the provisions of Section 57, is that the Superior Officer should be informed, immediately, after the alleged recovery of contraband, so that he must be aware of the genuineness of the proceedings, conducted by his junior, to ensure that no innocent person was implicated, and the allegations of high-handedness, against the Police officials, are averted. Had any explanation been furnished by the Investigating Officer, as to what prevented him, from complying with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, the matter would have been different. In the absence of any explanation, what to speak of plausible, the Court cannot coin any of its own, to fit in with the prosecution case. Since, the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were observed, more in breach, than in compliance, by the Investigating Officer, intentionally and deliberately, the case of the prosecution became doubtful, on account of this reason. The trial Court failed to take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it committed an error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 13. No doubt Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO, stated that he deposited the case property on 25.6.1996, with the MHC, with seals intact. The trial Court failed to take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it committed an error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 13. No doubt Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO, stated that he deposited the case property on 25.6.1996, with the MHC, with seals intact. He further stated that he took the case property, and the samples, from the MHC, on 26.6.1996, for producing the same, before the Magistrate, and after production of the same, again deposited the same, with the MHC. However, this statement of Ashok Mohan, SI, is completely belied by Surinder Singh, HC (PW-3). During the course of cross-examination, it was categorically stated by him, that from 25.6.1996 to 8.7.1996, he did not hand over the case property to anybody, including the SHO, P.S. Moonak, namely Ashok Mohan. When Surinder Kumar, HC, (PW-3), did not hand, over the case property, and the sample parcels to Ashok Mohan, SHO, the question of production of the same before the Illaqa Magistrate, did not at all arise. On account of the false statement made by Ashok Mohan, SHO, on this aspect of the matter, his credibility became suspect. The trial Court did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. 14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the defence version was more probable, than the prosecution version, but the trial Court, without any valid reason, discarded the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. Som Nath (DW­1) deposed that on 20.6.1996, the articles were loaded in the truck bearing No.GJ-6T-4417, belonging to the accused, from Bombay for Hoshiarpur, which weighed 9 tons, of powder PT A. He further stated that the accused was also paid Rs.60001- for expenses. He brought the Goods receipt and proved, Ex.DA, copy thereof. He further stated that he was working in the firm New Maharashtra Punjab Carrier Fleet owners Contractor and Commission Agents, Bomay, proprietor whereof, was Amrik Singh, at the relevant time. He also proved Ex.DB, authority letter, under the signatures of Amrik Singh, proprietor. He further stated that the accused alongwith his above truck, driven by his driver Devinder Singh, started from Bombay for Hoshiarpur, on 20.6.1996. He also proved Ex.DB, authority letter, under the signatures of Amrik Singh, proprietor. He further stated that the accused alongwith his above truck, driven by his driver Devinder Singh, started from Bombay for Hoshiarpur, on 20.6.1996. Devinder Singh, (DW -2), driver of the truck, also stated that he was driving the truck, in which the PTA powder was loaded and Jaswant Singh, accused, owner thereof, was with him. He further stated that Rs.6000/- were also paid by the company to the owner, for expenses. He further stated that on 25.6.1996, when they reached near Moonak barrier, the truck was stopped and a quarrel took place, between the accused and the police officials. He further stated that a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which was recovered from the search of the accused, was kept by the police. He further stated that when the accused demanded back the, amount of Rs.20,000/-, he was taken to the Police Station, and falsely implicated, in the instant case. He further stated that the mother of the accused was also called to the Police Station, and she paid Rs.20,000/- more to the Police, and the truck was released. He further stated that he unloaded the truck on 28.6.1996, at Hoshiarpur. He further stated that no opium was recovered from the accused. Barjinder Singh Jassar, (DW-5), Senior Factory Manager, J.C.T., Hoshiarpur, stated that on 28.6.1996, truck No.GJ6T -4417, entered their factory, at 11.45 AM. The truck contained 9 tons of PTA powder, which was unloaded on the same day, at 2.25 PM. He further stated that they had engaged the truck through Rajeev Roadways, and the document, in this regard, is Ex.DW5/ A. He also proved Ex.DW5/B, photocopy of the challan, Ex.DW5/C, photocopy of the transport challan, Ex.DW5/D, photocopy of the gate pass, Ex.DW5/E, copy of the inward register entry, Ex.DW5/F and DW5/G, copies of other entries of the register. From the statements of all these witnesses, the version set up by the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stands duly established. It is a settled principle of law, that the accused, is not required to prove his defence, beyond a reasonable doubt. He is only required to prove the probability of his defence. From the statements of all these witnesses, the version set up by the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stands duly established. It is a settled principle of law, that the accused, is not required to prove his defence, beyond a reasonable doubt. He is only required to prove the probability of his defence. The defence evidence, produced by the accused, clearly established that he was apparently falsely implicated, in the instant case, when he allegedly demanded back the money from Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO, who had recovered the same, from his possession. The defence version was more probable, than the prosecution version. There was no reason, on the part of the defence witnesses, to depose falsely. They had no ill-will, grudge, or enmity against the police, and especially against Ashok Mohan, SI/SHO, the Investigating Officer. There is also nothing, on the record, that they were in any way, interested in the accused, to save him, from the clutches of law. Since, the defence version was more probable, than the prosecution version, the trial Court was required to take into consideration the same, to arrive at the conclusion that the possibility of false implication of the accused, could not be ruled out. The trial Court, however, failed to take into consideration, this factum, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in holding that the accused was guilty of the offence. 15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Court below, are not based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. Had the trial Court taken into consideration, the aforesaid infirmities, and lacunae, it would not have reached the conclusion, that the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 18 of the Act. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence are, thus, liable to be set aside. 16. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 10.11.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge, framed against him. If, he is on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. If, he is in custody, then he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required in any other case. --------------------------