Judgment R.S.Madan, J. 1. Challenge herein in this Criminal Appeal is the judgment dated 19.10.1995, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby it has convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lakh only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, for keeping in his possession five bags of poppy husk containing 35Kg. each, without any permit or licence. 2. In brief the facts of the prosecution case, as culled out from the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are that on 10.4.1993 ASI Surjit Singh along with other police personnel, was on duty and was on the way to Village Khamano Kamali, Manderan and Lakhanpur in a private tempo. When they reached near Lakshmi Rice Mills the ASI received a secret information that accused Gurdas Singh son of Kehar Singh resident of Balaspur indulges in sale of poppy husk and in case a raid is conducted at his house then heavy quantity of poppy husk can be recovered from his possession. Believing the information to be reliable, ruqa Ex. PA was sent to the Police Station by the ASI, on the basis of which formal first information report Ex.PA/1 was registered against the accused. Independent witness namely Prem Singh was joined in the police party and the house of the accused was raided. The accused was found present in the house. On interrogation, the accused made disclosure statement Ex.PB to the effect that he had kept concealed five bags of poppy husk in his house, which was reduced into writing. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the place of concealment of poppy husk and got recovered five bags of poppy hush which on weighment came to 35 Kg. in each bag. 250 grams of poppy husk was separated as sample two times from each gunny bags. The samples and the residue were thereafter sealed with the seal SS and taken into possession. The recovery memo was attested by the aforesaid witnesses. in each bag. 250 grams of poppy husk was separated as sample two times from each gunny bags. The samples and the residue were thereafter sealed with the seal SS and taken into possession. The recovery memo was attested by the aforesaid witnesses. The ASI then prepared the rough site plan Ex.PE with correct marginal notes, recovery memo and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On return to the police station, deposited the case property with the MHC with seals intact and later on sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala for analysis, who vide his report Ex.PF opined that the contents of the sample were poppy husk. After the completion of all other formalities, challan against the accused under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act was submitted in the court for trial. After the receipt of the challan, the trial court committed the case to the court of Sessions, where the accused was charged, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, besides tendering into evidence the affidavit of formal witness, namely, Hans Raj (Ex.PG), examined ASI Surjit Singh, the investigating officer, as PW-1, Jai Kishan formal witness as PW-2, Head Constable Prem Singh, as PW-3 and Head Constable Lakhvir Singh, as PW-4 and closed the evidence. 4. Statement of the accused, as envisaged under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which the entire incrimination evidence appearing in the evidence of the prosecution was put to the accused, to which he denied inter alia pleading therein that he was falsely implicated in this case. The accused in his defence, examined Kulvinder Singh, Sarpanch of the Village as DW-1 and close the defence evidence. 5. The learned trial court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence brought the record, recorded the finding of guilty against the accused, as indicated in the preceding paragraph. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have carefully gone through the evidence as well as the documents, available on the record. 7. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the prosecution has not associated any independent witness while effecting the recovery from the house of the accused. 7. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the prosecution has not associated any independent witness while effecting the recovery from the house of the accused. It was incumbent upon the investigating officer to have associated two independent witnesses of the locality to witness the recovery of contraband but no such attempt was made by the investigating officer. Shri Prem Singh, the alleged independent witness (Chaukidar of the Village) was also not examined by the prosecution on the simple ground that he was won over by the accused. Thus, the non-examination of independent witness namely Prem Singh has proved fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even if Prem Singh, the alleged eye witness, was won over by the accused , the prosecution should have examined the said witness and in that eventuality the accused would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness to discredit the version of the prosecution. 8. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Prem Singh, Chaukidar, as per the prosecution was already present with the police party at the time of effecting recovery from the house of the accused. It is not essential for the prosecution to associate two independent witness of the locality. When it is established from the evidence of the prosecution that one independent witness was already associated by the investigating officer while effecting recovery of poppy husk from the house of the accused. 9. Another contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that a false case was planted upon the accused. 10. It is a case where the recovery was effected by the investigating officer after the accused suffered disclosure statement before the police wherein he stated that he has kept concealed the contraband underneath the parali in the court-yard of his house, about which only he has the knowledge and could get the same recovered. This statement was reduced into writing and thumb marked by the accused. In pursuance of the said statement, recovery of five bags of poppy husk was effected from underneath the parali lying in the court-yard of the house of the accused. This statement was reduced into writing and thumb marked by the accused. In pursuance of the said statement, recovery of five bags of poppy husk was effected from underneath the parali lying in the court-yard of the house of the accused. The statement of the investigating officer that prior to the making of recovery, the investigating officer has offered him the opportunity that he could be searched before the Gazetted Officer or before the Magistrate, was nothing but was the ignorance of law that the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act were not attracted, as the recovery of the poppy husk was effected from the house of the accused. 11. So far as the statement of DW-1 Kulvinder Singh, Sarpanch of the Village, is concerned that he was not summoned by the police at the time the disclosure statement was made by the accused or the recovery was effected from the house of the accused, because he remained present throughout the day in the village, is also of no help to the defence because DW-1 has himself admitted that he did not remain present in the Village for the whole day as some times he has to go out of the village as and when called by the authorities. 12. It is a case where the investigating officer had the secret information that the accused has kept in his house poppy husk for the purpose of sale and as per the site plan prepared by the investigating officer, which reflects that the house of the accused was not a big house and with little efforts the contraband could have been recovered. It is a case where the possession of the contraband was very much within the knowledge of the police and by recording the statement of the accused, the alleged recovery has been made the discovery instead of recovery, which hits the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The investigating officer was not having any knowledge about the statutory provisions relating to recovery or discovery of contraband. Thus, the recording of statement of the accused prior to effecting the recovery was a futile attempt. 13. It is a case which is totally based on the statement of police officials and their statements are trust worthy and inspired confidence. The investigating officer was not having any knowledge about the statutory provisions relating to recovery or discovery of contraband. Thus, the recording of statement of the accused prior to effecting the recovery was a futile attempt. 13. It is a case which is totally based on the statement of police officials and their statements are trust worthy and inspired confidence. There is not an iota of evidence available on the record to dis-believe their testimony, as the prosecution has successfully proved about the recovery of five bags of poppy husk, which cannot be said to have been planted upon the accused. It is not the case of the appellant that the police at the time of conducting raid was carrying with him the contraband bags in the tempo and planted the same upon the accused. 14. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.