Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25.3.1998, and the order of sentence dated 26.3.1998, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Ram 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 two years. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.9.1995, Raghbir Singh, ASI, alongwith Bali Ram, HC, and other police officials, was present at Ring Bandh, in connection with patrolling. In the meanwhile, the accused was seen coming from the side of Assandh, carrying a bag (jhola) on his right shoulder. On seeing the police party, the accused turned towards the fields. On the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended. Search of the bag (thaila), in accordance with the provisions of law, was conducted. It was found containing 4kgs. Poppyhusk. A sample of 200 grams, was separated, and the remaining poppy-husk, was put in the same bag (jhola). Both the sample and the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, sealed with the seal bearing impression "RSS", and taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, with correct marginal notes, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. 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 Naresh Kumar, MHC, (PW-1), Manphul Singh, Constable (PW-2), Bali Ram, HC (PW-3), Raghbir Singh, ASI (PW-4), and Satya Pal, ASI (PW-5). , Jagat Singh, ASI (PW-6), and Phool Singh, SI (PW-7). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. 4. The prosecution, in support of his case, examined Naresh Kumar, MHC, (PW-1), Manphul Singh, Constable (PW-2), Bali Ram, HC (PW-3), Raghbir Singh, ASI (PW-4), and Satya Pal, ASI (PW-5). , Jagat Singh, ASI (PW-6), and Phool Singh, SI (PW-7). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 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 outset, contended that though the alleged recovery was effected on 29.9.1995, yet the sample was sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, on 19.10.1995. 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 21 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 21 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. 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, being pointed out in the succeeding paragraphs, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. 10. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, 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 circumstances of the present case, when the accused alleged that he was falsely implicated, in this case, and the 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. Failure, on the part of the Investigating Officer, to join an independent witness, casts a cloud of doubt, on the case of the prosecution. 11. The Counsel for the appellant, further submitted that, it was doubtful, that the sample of this case, was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban, and, as such, the report Ex.PC of the said laboratory, was of no avail. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. According to report Ex.PC of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, the sample was allegedly received, in this case, on 18.10.1995, whereas according to Ex.PA, affidavit of Naresh Chand, HC, he was handed over the sample parcel, in this case, by the MHC, on 19.10.1995, for deposit of the same, in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, and he deposited the same, on that day, in the said laboratory. There is no evidence, on the record, that the sample, in this case, was deposited in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, on 19.10.1995. If the sample, which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, on 19.10.1995, was not deposited there, but on the other hand, some other sample, may be of some other case, was deposited, in the said laboratory, on 18.10.1995, report Ex.PC, thus, related to the sample, which was allegedly deposited on 18.10.1995, and not to the sample, which was allegedly sent for deposit, on 19.10.1995. In these circumstances, report Ex.PC, does not relate to this case. Once, this report is taken off the record, then no evidence is left to prove that the poppy-husk was recovered from the accused/appellant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, carries substance, and the same stands accepted. 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 25.3.1998, and the order of sentence dated 26.3.1998, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is discharged of the bail bonds.