Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.02.1998 and the order of sentence dated 13.02.1998, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance 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 further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 31.07.1994 Mahender Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector and other police officials were on patrol duty in a government jeep near the Cinema Hall, at Siwani. Ramesh Kumar son of Mange Rain met Mahender Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, and when he was talking with him, the accused, who was having a bag on his shoulder, was seen coming from the side of Old Bus Stand, Siwani. On suspicion, he was apprehended. The search of the bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law, as a result whereof, 6 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered. A sample of 100 grams was drawn, from the recovered poppy husk. The sample and the remainder were made into separate parcels, and sealed with seal bearing impression "MS". Seal after use was handed over to Ramesh Kumar, PW. The case property was taken into possession. Ruqa Ex. PB was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR Ex. PC was recorded. Rough site plan was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 15 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 Vijay Singh, Head Constable, (PW-1), Hari Parkash, Constable, (PW-2), Chandgi Ram, Sub Inspector, (PW-3), Lal Chand, DSP, (PW-4), Wazir Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-5), Om Parkash, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-6) and Mohinder Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-7). 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Vijay Singh, Head Constable, (PW-1), Hari Parkash, Constable, (PW-2), Chandgi Ram, Sub Inspector, (PW-3), Lal Chand, DSP, (PW-4), Wazir Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-5), Om Parkash, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-6) and Mohinder Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-7). Thereafter, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, closed 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. 6. After hearing the Addl. 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 lower Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the aforesaid accused/appellant. 8. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite due notice. 9. I have heard Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The first ground taken up, in the appeal, by the appellant was that though the alleged recovery was effected on 31.07.1994, yet the sample was sent to the Office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, on 04.08.1994. He further submitted that no explanation, whatsoever, was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to why, delay of four days, was caused in sending the sample to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban. 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 becomes doubtful. 11. In this case, Ramesh Kumar, public witness, was joined by the Investigating Officer, but he was given up as won over by the public Prosecutor for the State, vide statement dated 30.01.1996. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted in that case. On account of this infirmity, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. 11. In this case, Ramesh Kumar, public witness, was joined by the Investigating Officer, but he was given up as won over by the public Prosecutor for the State, vide statement dated 30.01.1996. The Public Prosecutor could give up a public witness, as won over, by the accused, only on the basis of solid information, that he was not going to support the case of the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor, could not act arbitrarily, in giving up a public witness, as won over. In the instant case, the Public Prosecutor for the State, made statement dated 30.01.1996, that he was giving up Ramesh, PW, as won over by the accused, on the basis of the Police request. However, that request, which was made by the police, is not on the record. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the decision taken by the Public Prosecutor for the State, for giving up Ramesh, PW, as won over, was legally justifiable. Ramesh PW was, thus, required to be examined, in this case, by the Public Prosecutor for the State, and had he resealed from his previous statement, then permission of the Court could be sought, to put him such questions, as are put during the course of cross-examination. 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 Ramesh, 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 Ramesh, 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 Ramesh, PW, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 12. There is another very glaring aspect of this case. When Mohinder Singh, Sub Inspector, the Investigating Officer, appeared in the witness box as, PW7, he stated that the Station House Officer, before whom, the case property was produced, affixed his own seal thereon, and retained the seal with him. 12. There is another very glaring aspect of this case. When Mohinder Singh, Sub Inspector, the Investigating Officer, appeared in the witness box as, PW7, he stated that the Station House Officer, before whom, the case property was produced, affixed his own seal thereon, and retained the seal with him. The fundamental principle of law, is that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution, to prove its case to the hilt that from the stage of recovery, till the deposit of the sample with the Chemical Examiner, it was not tampered with, at all. If from the evidence, on record, it is proved that there was possibility of tampering with the sample, before it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner, then a doubt is cast on the prosecution story. Since the seal was retained by the SHO, with whom the case property also remained the possibility of tampering, with the case property could not be ruled out. On account of this infirmity, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 13. Even the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were violated by the Investigating Officer. No doubt, the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, are directory, in nature. It does not mean that the same should not be complied with. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished by the Investigating Officer, as to what prevented him, from complying with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act. Had any plausible explanation, been furnished by him, in that regard, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof. In the absence of any explanation, what to speak plausible, the Court cannot coin any of its own, to fit in with the prosecution case. Keeping in view the stringent punishment, provided for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Act, it was required of the Investigating Officer, to strictly comply with the provisions of the Act, so that no doubt was cast on the prosecution story. This fact also cast a cloud of doubt, on the prosecution story. 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. 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 dated 12.02.1998, and the order of sentence dated 13.02.1998, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed again him. If the appellant, 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.