JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.10.2006 and the order of sentence dated 13.10.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which it convicted accused Darshan Singh @ Darshi (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to be as the ‘Act’ only) and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment, for a period of two years, for having been found in possession of 80 KGs and 400 grams poppy husk, without any permit or licence. Accused Ashok Kumar alias Shoki was acquitted by the trial Court. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 14.02.2004 ASI Som Nath alongwith H.C. Surjit Singh and other police officials, was present at the bus stand of village Ganga, in Government Jeep No. HR-24D-3033, being driven by Roop Chand, Constable, in connection with patrol duty and checking of crime. A Maruti car bearing No. PCS-9643 came from the side of village Munnawali. Besides the driver, one more person was sitting on the front seat of the car. Som Nath, ASI, gave a signal for stopping the car and it was stopped. On enquiry, the driver of the said car, told his name as Darshan Singh alias Darshi son of Amar Singh, resident of village Kussar , Police Station Rania. The other person disclosed his name as Ashok Kumar @ Shoki. The search of the car was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof 2 bags containing poppy husk were recovered therefrom. Each bag was found containing 40 Kgs and 200 grams poppy husk. Two samples of 100 grams each, from each of the bags, were taken out. The samples and the bags containing remaining poppy husk, were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. The accused were arrested. The site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. On interrogation, the accused disclosed that they had purchased bags of poppy straw, from Pappu son of Mani Ram, resident of Godikan on payment of Rs.5000/- for each bag. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. The accused were arrested. The site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. On interrogation, the accused disclosed that they had purchased bags of poppy straw, from Pappu son of Mani Ram, resident of Godikan on payment of Rs.5000/- for each bag. On such disclosure statement, the Investigating Officer raided the house of Pappu son of Mani Ram, but in-vain. Report Ex.PW2/A under Section 57 of the Act was prepared. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 3. On their appearance, in the Court, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ram Kumar, Head Constable, (PW-1), Rajbir Singh, SI/SHO, (PW-2), Som Nath, ASI, (PW-3). Surjit Singh, ASI, (PW-4) and Subhash Constable, (PW -5). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. They however, examined Tara Chand son of Ram Lal, DW-1, Raj Kumar, Head Constable, DW-2 and Sher Singh, EHC, DW-3 and thereafter closed the evidence in defence. 6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced Darshan Singh alias Darshi and acquitted Ashok Kumar alias Sokhi 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 Darshan Singh alias Darshi, 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, vehemently, contended that no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of alleged search and seizure, despite availability, as a result whereof, the prosecution case became doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, vehemently, contended that no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of alleged search and seizure, despite availability, as a result whereof, the prosecution case became doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. Som Nath, ASI, (PW- 3), during the course of cross examination, stated that many persons were present at the place of recovery. He further stated that he asked five-seven persons to become witnesses, but they expressed their inability. He further stated that he did not mention their names, in the case diary. He further stated that he did not take any action against those persons, who refused to join the investigation. To the same effect, is the statement of Surjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-4). It appears that the explanation furnished by both the witnesses, is not plausible. In case the persons, who were present, at the spot, at the time of the alleged search and seizure, were asked to join the investigation, but they refused to do so, at least their names could be entered in the case diary, the ruqa or other documents, prepared at the spot. However, the Investigating Officer, did not do so. This clearly goes to prove that no effort was made to join an independent witness, despite availability, at the time of alleged search and seizure. Since minimum stringent punishment is provided for the offences, punishable under the Act, and according to the provisions of Section 51 of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to search, seizure and arrest shall apply to the extent, the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, it was imperative, on the part of the Investigating Officer, to join an independent witness, at the time of the alleged search, and seizure, or at least to make a genuine, sincere and real effort, to join such a witness. The search and seizure, before an independent witness, would have imparted much more authenticity and creditworthiness, to the proceedings, so conducted. It would have also verily strengthen the prosecution case. The said safeguard was also intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and high-handed action, against the authorized Officer. The search and seizure, before an independent witness, would have imparted much more authenticity and creditworthiness, to the proceedings, so conducted. It would have also verily strengthen the prosecution case. The said safeguard was also intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and high-handed action, against the authorized Officer. In other words, the Legislature, in its wisdom, considered it necessary to provide such a statutory safeguard, to lend credibility to the procedure, relating to search and seizure, keeping in view the severe punishment, prescribed under the Act. That being so, it was imperative for the authorized Officer, to follow the reasonable, fair and just procedure, as envisaged by the Statute, and failure to do so, must be viewed with suspicion. The legitimacy of judicial procedure, may come under cloud, if the Court is seen to condone acts of violation of statutory safeguards, committed by the authorized officer, during search and seizure operation, and may also undermine respect of law. That cannot be permitted. It was the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer to observe all the safeguards, provided under the Act, at the time of search and seizure. It is, no doubt, true that, in the absence of corroboration through an independent source, the evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be disbelieved and distrusted, blind-foldely, if the same is found to be creditworthy. However, when the evidence of the official witnesses, is found to be not cogent convincing, reliable and trustworthy, then on account of non­corroboration thereof, through an independent source, certainly a doubt is cast, on the prosecution story. In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, does not inspire confidence, in the mind of the Court. In this view of the matter, non-corroboration of the evidence of the official witnesses, through an independent source, certainly makes the case of the prosecution suspect. In State of Punjab Vs. Bhupinder Singh, 2001 (01) RCR (Crl.) 356, a Division Bench of this Court, held the case of the prosecution, to be doubtful, on account of non-joining of an independent witness, though the recovery was effected from a busy locality. In State of Punjab Vs. Ram Chand, 2001(1) RCR (Crl.) 811, a Division Bench of this Court, held that it was imperative to join an independent witness, to vouchsafe the fair investigation. In State of Punjab Vs. Ram Chand, 2001(1) RCR (Crl.) 811, a Division Bench of this Court, held that it was imperative to join an independent witness, to vouchsafe the fair investigation. On account of non-joining of an independent witness, it was held that the accused was entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. On account of non-joining of an independent witness, at the time of the alleged search and seizure, the case of the prosecution, became highly doubtful. The trial Court failed to take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it fell into an error in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 10. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that though the alleged recovery, in this case, was affected on 14.02.2004, yet the samples were sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory on 25.02.2004, and, as such, there was delay of 11 days. He further submitted that the delay of 11 days, in sending the sample, to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, remained unexplained. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the sample parcels, could not be ruled out, especially, when the seals, remained in possession of the police officials, in whose possession the case property, and the sample parcels, remained. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. It is, no doubt, true that the mere delay in sending the samples to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, in itself, is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the link evidence was incomplete or that there was possibility of tampering with the same, until the same reached the said Laboratory. In the instant case, the other evidence produced by the prosecution, is not only deficient but unreliable. Ram Kumar, H.C. (PW-1), who was MHC in the Police Station Sadar Dabwali, on the relevant day, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. During the course of cross-examination, it was stated by him that the case property, sample parcels etc. were deposited with him on 14.02.2004. He further stated, during the course of cross­examination, that originally the Forensic Science Laboratory, raised some objections and, thus, the parcels could not be deposited there. were deposited with him on 14.02.2004. He further stated, during the course of cross­examination, that originally the Forensic Science Laboratory, raised some objections and, thus, the parcels could not be deposited there. He further stated that the Investigating Officer broke the seals on the parcels, during the transit period, from Sirsa to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, and again affixed his own seal upon the said parcels while sitting in his office on 22.02.2004. He further stated that the above said parcels were taken out of the Malkhana of Police Station Sadar, Dabwali, by him and he produced the same, before the Investigating Officer for removing the objections at 1.00 PM on 22.02.2004. However, he frankly admitted that he did not make any entry in the daily diary register, in this behalf. As and when the case property is taken out of the Malkhana, for whatever purpose, may be, an entry of the same is made, in the daily diary register. Without making the entry, in the daily diary register that the sample parcels were taken out of the Malkhana, the same could not be produced before Som Nath, AS!. How the Investigating Officer broke the seals of the parcels and affixed new seals, is a matter which remained shrouded in mystery. Even this fact is established from affidavit Ex.PW1/A of Ram Kumar, Head Constable and affidavit Ex.PW5/A of Subhash, Constable. According to the affidavit of Ram Kumar, Head Constable, he handed over the sample parcels on 19.02.2004 to Subhash Chander, Constable, who deposited the same on 25.02.2004 and handed over the receipt after deposit to him. To the same effect, is the affidavit of Subhash, Constable, Ex.PW5/A. There is no mention in both these affidavits that the sample parcels were taken out of the Malkhana on 22.02.2004 and then produced before the Investigating Officer, who after breaking the seals thereof, and removing the objections, re-sealed the same. There is nothing in both these affidavits, that at any time prior to 19.2.2004 the sample parcels were handed over to Subhash Chander, Constable. There is no mention, in these affidavits, that any objections were raised by the Forensic Science Laboratory, earlier and Subhash Chander, Constable, could not deposit the said samples, in the Laboratory, and brought the same back to the Police Station. There is no mention, in these affidavits, that any objections were raised by the Forensic Science Laboratory, earlier and Subhash Chander, Constable, could not deposit the said samples, in the Laboratory, and brought the same back to the Police Station. This clearly goes to show that the sample parcels before the same were handed over to the constable concerned, for deposit in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, were tampered with by the Investigating Officer namely Som Nath, ASI in connivance with the MHC, by breaking the seals thereof. The link in the chain of the prosecution evidence was, thus, found missing. Thus, it can be held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the completion of link evidence, in the instant case. It is the duty of the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that none tampered with the samples, till the same reached the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram 1980 SCC 683 the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt all the links starting from seizure. It was held that the possibility of being changed or tampered with, during the period the samples changed several hands till the reaching thereof the Public Analyst, could not be ruled out. In State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme Court), the sample parcels were sent to the Laboratory after 15 days without any explanation for delay. No other worthwhile evidence, was produced, to prove that none tampered with the sample parcels until the same reached the Laboratory. It was held that the case of the prosecution became doubtful. In this view of the matter, the instant case also became doubtful. The trial Court, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, it erred in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 11. The second limb of this argument, was to the effect, that no explanation was furnished as to where the sample parcels remained from 19.02.2004 to 24.02.2004. According to the affidavits, referred to above, the sample parcels were handed over to Subhash Chander, Constable, on 19.02.2004 and he deposited the same on 25.02.2004. There is no explanation whatsoever, on the record, as to where the sample parcels for a period of about six days remained. According to the affidavits, referred to above, the sample parcels were handed over to Subhash Chander, Constable, on 19.02.2004 and he deposited the same on 25.02.2004. There is no explanation whatsoever, on the record, as to where the sample parcels for a period of about six days remained. The prosecution is required to prove through cogent and convincing evidence that none tampered with the samples, right from the date of alleged seizure until the parcels were deposited with the Laboratory. No doubt, Subhash Chander, Constable, during the course of cross-examination stated that he had taken the sample parcels on 19.02.2004 and brought back the same on 21.02.2004 with some objections and the same were taken again by him on 23.02.2004 and he deposited the same with the Forensic Science Laboratory on 25.02.2004. However, this fact is neither mentioned in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A of MHC Ram Kumar, nor in the affidavit of Subhash Chander, Constable (PW-5). It appears that such an explanation was concocted by this witness, lateron, just with a view to complete the link evidence. Had some reliable evidence been produced to plug the missing link, the matter would have been considered in the light thereof. In the absence of production of any reliable evidence, in this regard, the case of the prosecution became highly doubtful. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act were not complied with, as a result whereof, a prejudice was caused to the accused. In the instant case, no doubt, there was violation of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, as the case property and the samples were not produced before the Magistrate. Section 55 of the Act, lays down, that an Officer Incharge of the Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized, under this Act, within the local area of that Police Station, and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer, who may accompany such articles, to the Police Station, or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles, or to take samples of, and from them, and all samples, so taken, shall also be sealed with a seal of the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The perusal of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, clearly reveals that the case property and the samples are required to be produced before the Magistrate, so as to ensure, that there was no false implication of the accused, and that actually a specific quantity of the contraband was recovered from him. No doubt, the provisions of Section 55 of the Act are directory, in nature, yet that does not mean that the same should be deliberately and intentionally breached. Had any explanation been furnished, by the Investigating Officer, as to what prevented him, from producing the case property, before the Illaqa Magistrate, immediately after the search and seizure, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof, but in the absence of any explanation, having been furnished, by the Investigating Officer, in this regard, the Court cannot coin any of its own, to fit in with the prosecution case. Since, there was deliberate and intentional breach of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, by the Investigating Officer, the same cannot be condoned. 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, and, as such, failure will have bearing on the appreciation of evidence, regarding search and seizure of the accused. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authority, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. As stated above, since the Investigating Officer, intentionally and deliberately breached the provisions of Section 55, he could not say that the provisions thereof being directory, in nature, he was not bound to comply with the same. If such a stand of the Investigating Officer is taken, as correct, then the provisions of the Act, which are directory, in nature, would be flouted with impunity, by him. Compliance of the said provision is an indicator, towards the reasonable, fair and just procedure, adopted by the Investigating Officer, during the course of search and seizure. Non-compliance of such a provision, deliberately and intentionally, must be viewed with suspicion. Compliance of the said provision is an indicator, towards the reasonable, fair and just procedure, adopted by the Investigating Officer, during the course of search and seizure. Non-compliance of such a provision, deliberately and intentionally, must be viewed with suspicion. Legitimacy of the judicial procedure, may come under cloud, if the Courts seem to condone acts of violation of statutory safeguards, committed by an authorized officer, during search and seizure operation. Such an attitude of the investigating agency, cannot be permitted. Intentional and deliberate breach of the provisions of Section 55, certainly caused prejudice, to the accused, and cast a doubt on the prosecution story. The trial Court did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. 13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that a number of material discrepancies and contradictions, occurred in the statements of the official witnesses, which remained unexplained, as a result whereof, the case of the prosecution became highly doubtful, but the trial Court, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. Som Nath, ASI (PW-3), during the course of cross-examination, stated that Ramesh, EHC was sent to call public witnesses from nearby houses but none came there, whereas, Surjit Singh, ASI (PW-4), stated that no police official was sent to the village to call public witnesses. Som Nath, ASI (PW-3), during the course of cross-examination, stated that most of the documents were scribed by Roop Chand, on his dictation, while notice under Section 50 of the Act was scribed by Ramesh, EHC, on his dictation, whereas, Surjit Singh, ASI (PW-4), during the course of cross-examination, stated that no writing work was done on the dictation of Investigating Officer. Som Nath, ASI (PW-3), during the course of cross-examination stated that the seal was returned to him by Surjit Singh, ASI, after seven days, whereas Surjit Singh, ASI (PW-4) stated that he returned the seal to Som Nath, ASI, on the very next day. Som Nath, ASI (PW-3), during the course of cross-examination stated that the seal was returned to him by Surjit Singh, ASI, after seven days, whereas Surjit Singh, ASI (PW-4) stated that he returned the seal to Som Nath, ASI, on the very next day. Som Nath, ASI (PW-3) during the course of cross­examination, stated that the weighment of the case property was carried out by a scale of the capacity of 1 KG, whereas Surjit Singh, ASI (PW-4) stated that the capacity of the scale was of 5 Kgs. Som Nath, ASI (PW-3), during the course of cross-examination, stated that the writing work was partly done in the day light, and partly in the torch light, whereas Surjit Singh, ASI (PW-4), during the course of cross­examination, stated that the writing work was done in the day light. No doubt, if these discrepancies and contradictions, are taken individually, the same may not be said to be significant but if the same are taken collectively, then certainly the same cast a cloud of doubt, on the prosecution case especially when the case is based on the evidence of the official witnesses. These discrepancies could not be said to be the one, which occurred in the normal course, explanation was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to how these discrepancies and contradictions occurred, in their statements. Had any explanation been furnished, in that regard, the Court would have considered the case of the prosecution, in the light thereof. In the absence of any explanation, the Court cannot coin the one, of its own, to fit in with the case of the prosecution. The contradictions which are material, in nature, when taken collectively, make the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, carries substance, and stands accepted. 14. No other point was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 15. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, 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 15 of the Act. 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 15 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 dated 10.10.2006, and the order of sentence dated 13.10.2006, 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, he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required in any other case. ----------------