JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The appellant faced trial as an accused for offences under Sections 18 and 20(b)(l)(ix) of the N.D. & P.S. Act as well as 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, in S.T.No. 16/150 of 1990 before the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri. By the judgment dated 15.9.1990, the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri found the appellant not guilty under Section 18 of the N.D. & P.S.Act and acquitted him of the said offence, but found the appellant guilty under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further of two months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.1988 at about 4.30 P.M., P.W.1 (A.S.I. of Excise) and P.W.2 (Constable of Sadar Mobile, Puri) while performing their patrol duty at Sea-beach area found the accused-appellant proceeding towards Swar¬gadwar holding a bag in his hand. It is their further case that the said P.Ws. suspected that the accused-appellant might have been in possession of contraband opium and other excisable arti¬cles for which they detained the appellant on the road in front of Mahodadhi Nibas. But while making arrangements to make search and seizure, the appellant suddenly threw the cloth bag in which contraband was later found and ran away towards Nolia Sahi. It is alleged that the said P.Ws. chased the appellant, but failed. Thereafter, in the presence of witnesses, P.W.1 opened the bag from which he found a “Jari packet” containing 45 gms. of opium and another paper packet containing 115 gms. of non-duty paid ganja. Those articles were seized in presence of witnesses under a seizure list marked Ext.-1 and put into a sealed packets and were produced before the S.I. of Excise (P.W.4). P.W.4 opened those sealed packets and having been satisfied that those packets were containing opium and non-duty paid ganja, took sample of 20 gms. from each packet and sent them for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner reveals that the seized articles, in fact, constituted opium and non-duty paid ganja. 3. The prosecution examined altogether four witnesses in support of its case and no witness was examined on behalf of the accused. 4. from each packet and sent them for chemical examination. The report of the Chemical Examiner reveals that the seized articles, in fact, constituted opium and non-duty paid ganja. 3. The prosecution examined altogether four witnesses in support of its case and no witness was examined on behalf of the accused. 4. P.W.1, the A.S.I. of Excise and P.W.2, the constable had made the search and seizure and P.W.4 was the S.I. of Excise before whom the seized articles were produced. Apart from these official witnesses, the only independent witness was P.W.3, namely, Sankara Samantaray. 5. The learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge had taken note of the fact that the official witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the independent witness P.W.3 have given different statements regarding the place/location of seizure. While taking note of the same, he failed to consider the discrepancy to be of any material consequence, since the difference distance from Puri Hotel (the place of alleged seizure as stated by the independent witness) from Mahadadhi Niwas (the place of seizure as stated by the official witnesses) was only 50 cubits and came to hold that such discrepancy was not material for the purpose of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the entire case against the appellant was a looked up case, inasmuch as the prosecution admits that the bag from which the contraband articles were seized, was not found from the posses¬sion of the appellant at the time of seizure. In fact, it was the case of the prosecution that the appellant threw the bag and ran away and therefore, it cannot be alleged that the contraband articles were seized from the possession of the appellant. Even apart from this, out of four witnesses, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are either police-man or officers of Excise Department and P.W.3 was called as an independent witness, but while his evidence is in variance with the evidence of official witnesses, the same would clearly establish that the said witness was a stock witness of the Excise Department. 7. Considering the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the discrepancy which emanate from the prosecution evidence, it would be important to take note of the evidence of P.W.3. In his evidence-in-chief, the said witness has stated that the incident took place near Swargadwar and changed that by saying near Puri Hotel. 7. Considering the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the discrepancy which emanate from the prosecution evidence, it would be important to take note of the evidence of P.W.3. In his evidence-in-chief, the said witness has stated that the incident took place near Swargadwar and changed that by saying near Puri Hotel. He further stated that the accused was standing with a cloth bag, but when the A.S.I. baboo caught hold of him, he threw the bag and ran away. According to P.W.3, the contraband articles were seized from that cloth bag. In his cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that the seizure took place near Puri Hotel on the road and Mahadadhi Niwas is 50 cubits from Puri Hotel. According to him, he was present at the Chhaka near Puri Hotel and nobody called him to the spot, but he was present at the time of search and seizure. The said witness further stated that there are many shops by the side of Puri Hotel. The important aspect stated by P.W.3 is to the following effect : “I take opium and I have my licence to take the opium. Now days the licence is being issued to the consumers through the Excise Department. At times, I take the opium from the excise office.” 8. The evidence noted above would clearly go to show that it is a fact that the appellant was not present at the time of seizure nor at the time when it is alleged that the accused to have ran away from the spot. There is clear doubt in the prosecution evidence as to whether the seizure was effected near Mahadadhi Niwas as stated by the official witnesses or near Puri Hotel as stated by P.W.3. While this discrepancy by itself might not be of great importance, yet it is well known fact that the said Sea-beach road is heavily crowded and when the seizure is effected at 4.30 P.M. on such a crowded road and when there are number of shops, it is indeed strange that the Excise authorities only obtained an independent witness in the form of P.W.3 who merely happened to be there and who is an opium addict and has obtained licence from the Excise Department. This fact cannot be accepted as a mere co-incident and that when there are hundreds of witnesses available at the Sea-beach area at Puri at the time of occurrence, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why no other independent witness was produced in course of the trial. The evidence of a witness in form of P.W.3, who admittedly happens to be an opium addict and a licensee from the Excise Department, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. Therefore, in my view, the evidence of the prosecution does not inspire sufficient confidence for the purpose of maintaining the conviction and the prosecution have failed to establish their case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is allowed, the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds stand discharged. Crl. appeal allowed.