Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.1997, and the order of sentence dated 22.11.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Nirmal Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 15 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. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 28.10.1995, at about 7.00 PM, Dhanna Ram, SI, alongwith Ramphal, ASI, Nathu Ram and Rajbir, Constables, was present at Bus Stand Pundri, in connection with investigation of a case against Mukhtiara son of Sardool Singh. At that time, Nirmal Singh, accused was also present there. Dhanna Singh, SI, suspected that the accused had concealed some narcotic substance, in his jacket. On the basis of suspicion, search of the jacket, being worn by the accused, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law. On search, 2 kg. of poppy-husk, was recovered, from the inner pocket of the Jacket. A sample of 200 grams, was separated. The sample and the remaining poppy-husk were converted into parcels, sealed with the seal bearing impression "DR", and taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Site plan of the place of recovery, was prepared. The accused was arrested. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the formal FIR was registered. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of his case, examined Dhanna Ram, SI (PW-1), Ram Pal, ASI (PW-2), Roshan Lal (PW-3), and Ram Phal, Constable (PW-4). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, after tendering into evidence, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Ex.PH, 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. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, after tendering into evidence, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Ex.PH, 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. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in his 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 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. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very out-set, contended that no independent witness was joined, though the alleged recovery was effected from a public place. It is, no doubt, true that the evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be doubted, merely, on account of the reason, that no independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, when the accused alleged that he was falsely implicated, in this case, and alleged recovery is very minor, it can be held that non-joining of an independent witness, despite availability, clearly cast a doubt on the prosecution story. Since, the alleged recovery was effected from a public place, and the independent witnesses were present, even at the time, when the accused was allegedly apprehended, it became the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer, to join one of them, so as to show the genuineness of proceedings. The prosecution case becomes doubtful, on this ground. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, further contended that since the Investigating Officer, entertained suspicion, that the accused was carrying poppy-husk and he was told about the same, and thereafter, the search of his person, was conducted and the alleged recovery was effected therefrom, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were applicable to the present case, but the same were not complied with. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, being mandatory, in nature, the violation thereof, by the Investigating Officer, will result into the vitiation of trial. He further contended that, in the instant case, there was complete violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. He further contended that the accused was only given a partial offer. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, appears to be correct. It is proved from the evidence, on record, that the alleged recovery was effected from the person of the accused. In these circumstances, the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, were applicable to the instant case. It is evident from consent memo dated 28.10.1995, Ex.PA, that the accused was only given an offer, as to whether, he wanted to get his search conducted from some Gazetted Officer. No offer was given to him, as to whether, he wanted to get his search, conducted from a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The offer, therefore, was partial, and incomplete. The offer given by the Investigating Officer, to the accused, regarding his search, only before a Gazetted Officer, could not be said to be valid. In the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994(1) RCR (Crl.) 737, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, are mandatory, and their non-compliance must prove fatal, resulting into acquittal of the accused. In similar circumstances, in Inderjit Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 (2) RCR 114, reliance upon which, has been placed by the Counsel for the appellant, only a partial offer, had been given to the accused, as to whether, he wanted his search to be conducted, before a Gazetted Officer, and this Court, held that such an offer, being partial, there was complete violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, and the accused was entitled to acquittal. No authority, laying down the preposition of law, to the contrary, was cited by the Counsel for the respondent. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act ibid, in its entirety, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, and result into acquittal of the appellant/accused. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act ibid, in its entirety, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, and result into acquittal of the appellant/accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, carries substance, and stands accepted. 11. The Counsel for the appellant further contended that though the alleged recovery was effected on 28.10.1995, yet the sample was sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, on 13.11.1995. He further submitted that no explanation was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to why, the sample was sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban, after a delay of 16 days. He further submitted that, on account of delay, in sending the sample to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban, the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished, as to why, the sample was not sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, for about a period of 16 days. Had any explanation been furnished, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof, but in the absence of any explanation, having been furnished, in this regard, the Court cannot coin any of its own. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 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. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted in that case. On account of this infirmity, and other lacunae, referred to above, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. 12. 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, and the same are liable to be set aside. 13. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction dated 20.11.1997, and the order of sentence dated 22.11.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. 13. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction dated 20.11.1997, and the order of sentence dated 22.11.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is discharged of the bail bonds.