JUDGMENT S. D. ANAND, J.- Appellant was prosecuted in case FIR No.91 dated 29.2.1992, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on a charge of having been found in possession of unlicensed 40 kgs. of poppy husk on 29.2.1992 when the police party headed by SI Randhir Singh apprehended him on the bridge of Chhoti Yamuna in the area of village Chaura. The gunny bag being carried by the appellant on the carrier of the cycle was searched in the presence of DSP Khushi Ram (who was requisitioned to the spot by the Investigating Officer). It was found to contain contraband. 2. On appraisal of the prosecution evidence, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal recorded a finding of conviction and directed the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac. It was further ordered that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI for a period of 2-1/2 years. 3. The appellant is in appeal. 4. The appeal deserves to succeed for the reasons indicated hereunder. 5. It is beyond the pale of controversy that, in terms of the provisions of Act, the Investigating Officer is required to inform the offender that he has the option of a search being conducted in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. It is in that context that DSP Khushi Ram was called to the spot as the appellant desired the search to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The very presence of DSP at the spot is doubtful on the proven facts and circumstances of the case. DSP Khushi Ram conceded that the carbon copy of the recovery memo does not bear his signatures. The Investigating Officer testified to the effect that the DSP had attested the recovery memo. By the very nature of things, whatever appears on original document would be reflected in the carbon copy as well. In that view of things, the only inference deducible in the circumstances of the case is that the DSP was not available at the spot and he appears to have been introduced into the case just in order to be able to meet the legal requirement. 6. In that view of things, the only inference deducible in the circumstances of the case is that the DSP was not available at the spot and he appears to have been introduced into the case just in order to be able to meet the legal requirement. 6. It is common ground that there is enough material on the file to indicate that the impugned recovery had been effected at a place where members of public would be normally expected to be available throughout the day. However, no attempt appears to have been made by the Investigating Officer to associate any independent member of the public in the police party. Without in any manner suggesting that a conviction cannot be based upon the testimony of official witnesses, it requires to be re-iterated that the association of an independent member of public lends a touch of credibility to the proceedings taken by the police. Things could obviously be different if none was actually available or if those available were dis-inclined to associate. Neither eventuality of that category is averred in the present case. 7. In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeal shall stand allowed. The judgment (of conviction) and order (on point of sentence) recorded by the learned Trial Judge shall stand set aside. The appellant is on bail and recovery of fine had been stayed. 8. Disposed of accordingly. He shall stand discharged of the bonds. —————————