Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction , and the order of sentence dated 22.7.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 20 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 09.12.1996 SI/ SHO Harjinder Singh along with other police officials, was present in the area of Bhagowal, in connection with patrol and crime checking duty. A secret information was received that Inder Singh son of Ujagar Singh was doing the business of sale of poppy husk and on that day, he was coming with poppy husk and was to cross bridge of canal, in the area of Choranwali to go to his village. On receipt of the information, the police party reached the disclosed place and a picket was held. Om Parkash, Sarpanch, was joined with the police party. On reaching the bridge of canal, Choranwali, the accused was seen coming with a plastic bag. Search of the plastic bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. It was found containing 1.750 kgs. poppy-husk. A sample of 250 grams was separated. The sample as well as the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed with the seal, bearing impression HS, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo Ex.PB. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. 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 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ajaib Singh, DSP, PW-1, Harjinder Singh, SI, PW-2, Sucha Singh, ASI, PW-3, Balwinder Singh, Constable, PW-4, Diwan Singh, Reader, PW-5, Balwinderjit Singh, HC, PW6, and Khera Singh, C, PW7. Charge under Section 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Ajaib Singh, DSP, PW-1, Harjinder Singh, SI, PW-2, Sucha Singh, ASI, PW-3, Balwinder Singh, Constable, PW-4, Diwan Singh, Reader, PW-5, Balwinderjit Singh, HC, PW6, and Khera Singh, C, PW7. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, tendered into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PJ, and 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. 6. In defence, the accused/appellant examined Swaran Singh son of Diwan Singh, DW1. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. None had turned up on behalf of the appellant despite due notice. 10. I have heard Mr. O.P. Dabla, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 11. The first ground taken up, in the appeal, by the appellant, was that though the alleged recovery was effected from him on 09.12.1996, yet the sample was sent to the Office of the Chemical Examiner, on 24.12.1996, and no explanation, whatsoever, was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to why, delay of 15 days, was caused, in sending the sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner. The delay in sending the sample, to the Laboratory, assumed added significance, as the seal after use, by the Investigating Officer, was handed over to his junior Police official, whereas, the seal after use by the S.H.O, was retained by him. It means that the Investigating Officer, and the S.H.O., could certainly tamper with the case property, and the contents of the sample, until it (sample) was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. It means that the Investigating Officer, and the S.H.O., could certainly tamper with the case property, and the contents of the sample, until it (sample) was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. 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, to fit in with the prosecution 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, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 12. In this case, Om Parkash, public witness was joined by the Investigating Officer, but he was given up, as won over by the accused, by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, vide statement dated 30.01.1996. There is nothing in the statement of the Public Prosecutor for the State, as to on the basis of which data and material, he had come to the conclusion that Om Parkash, PW, was siding with the accused and as such, if examined, he would damage the case of the prosecution. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Public Prosecutor for the State was required to examine this witness, and if he resiled, permission could be sought from the Court to put him such questions, as are put during cross-examination. Even if, during the course of such cross-examination, he had not supported the case of the prosecution, the weight of his testimony would have been considered in the light of other evidence, and attending circumstances of the case. By simply saying that a particular witness had sided, with the accused, without any valid grounds, could not be said to be sufficient, for giving up such a witness, as won over. It appears that Om Parkash, PW, was not examined, by the prosecution, intentionally and deliberately, as it feared that he would tell the truth, which may cast a cloud of doubt, on the prosecution story. It appears that Om Parkash, PW, was not examined, by the prosecution, intentionally and deliberately, as it feared that he would tell the truth, which may cast a cloud of doubt, on the prosecution story. Non-examination of Om Parkash, PW, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. On account of non-examination of Om Parkash, PW, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 13. Ex.PF is the affidavit of Balwinder Singh, Constable, who appeared in the witness box as PW4. In para No.4 of his affidavit, it was mentioned by him, that on 24.12.1996 he deposited the sample parcel in the office of the Chemical Examiner and after depositing the same, handed over the receipt to the MHC. He did not state that he also deposited the sample impression of the seal, in the office of the Chemical Examiner. It means that no such sample impression of the seal was deposited. It is not known, as to how, the report of the Chemical Examiner, mentioned that the seals on the sample tallied with the sample seal. A doubt is, thus, cast on the report Ex.PJ of the Laboratory. On account of this reason, the case of the prosecution also became doubtful. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the Court below, are not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, and the same are liable to be set aside. 15. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 22.7.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed again him. If he is on bail, he shall stand discharged of the bail bonds. If, he is in custody, then he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required in any other case.