Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction , and the order of sentence dated 08.08.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant, 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 2-1/2 years. 2. The facts, in brief are that on 13.06.1994 Surinder Pal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector along with ASI Balbir Singh and other police officials was going through village Dhanno in a Government vehicle for patrolling, and at about 1.15 PM when the police party was behind the turning of road leading to village Hussainpura, which falls in the revenue limits of village Dhanno, Malkiat Singh, accused, was seen coming from the side of Hussainpura, carrying a gunny bag, on his head. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away but was apprehended on suspicion. The search of the gunny bag, being carried by the accused, in accordance with the provisions of law, was conducted, by ASI Surinder Pal Singh, which resulted into the recovery of 25.500 Kgs. poppy-husk. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken out of the recovered poppy husk, and the remaining poppy husk was kept into the same bag. The samples and the bag were converted into separate parcels, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression "SS" and taken into possession vide separate recovery memo Ex.PC. 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 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 ASI Balbir Singh, PW-1, ASI Surinder Pal Singh, Investigating Officer, PW2, Constable Manoj Kumar, PW-3, ASI Sampuran Singh, PW-4, and Head Constable Gurmail Singh, PW5. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the evidence. 5. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ASI Balbir Singh, PW-1, ASI Surinder Pal Singh, Investigating Officer, PW2, Constable Manoj Kumar, PW-3, ASI Sampuran Singh, PW-4, and Head Constable Gurmail Singh, PW5. Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the 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. It was stated by him that on 10.06.1994, his brother Naldev Singh was transporting 900 boxes of Mcdowel Whisky in a truck to Jallandhar, who was implicated in a false case of poppy husk. It was further stated by him that on 13.6.1994, he had gone to Police Station, Malerkotla to see his brother, who was in police custody there. It was further stated by him that he was also detained by the Investigating Officer, so as to prevent him from pursuing the case of his brother, and from claiming 900 boxes of whisky. 6. In defence, the accused examined Baldev Singh, his brother, DW1. Thereafter, he closed the defence evidence. 7. After hearing the Additional 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. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended that though the alleged recovery, was effected from the accused on 13.06.1994, yet the sample was sent to the Office of the Chemical Examiner, on 21.6.1994. He further submitted that no explanation, whatsoever, was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to why, delay of eight 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. 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. 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. 11. 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. He further contended that even no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer, to summon any independent witness, to join the search and seizure proceedings. He further contended that, on account of this reason, a cloud of doubt, was cast on the prosecution story, and the trial Court failed to take into consideration, this most important factor, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. Surinder Pal Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Investigating Officer, while appearing in the witness box as, PW2, stated during the course of cross-examination that from village Malerkotla upto village Dhano, a number of persons met them. He further stated that there are Panches, and Lambardars in village Dhanno. He further stated that after the accused was apprehended, he had asked the Constable, who was sent for bringing weights and scale, to also bring some independent witness . He further stated that the Constable reported that no person was available in the village. He further stated that there are Panches, and Lambardars in village Dhanno. He further stated that after the accused was apprehended, he had asked the Constable, who was sent for bringing weights and scale, to also bring some independent witness . He further stated that the Constable reported that no person was available in the village. The constable, however, did not disclose the name of the person, from whom, he brought the weights and scale. He further stated that he did not make any reference, in the diary, that the constable was deputed to bring an independent witness. The explanation, furnished by this witness, is not plausible. It could not be imagined, that no person, in a village like Dhanno, was present. This goes to show that no effort, whatsoever, was made to join an independent witness, but a false explanation, was concocted by the Investigating Officer, just with a view to show his bonafides, that he made an effort to join an independent witness, but none was available in the village. It is also evident from his statement that the place of recovery is a road. He further stated that the police remained at the spot for 4-1/2 hours. It, therefore, could not be imagined that during that period, no person passed on the public road, where the alleged recovery was effected. It means that the independent witness was not intentionally and deliberately joined. It is, no doubt, true that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be disbelieved on account of non-corroboration through an independent witness. However, when it is proved from the evidence on record that the independent witnesses were available, but none of them was joined without any valid reasons, then certainly an element of doubt, is cast on the prosecution story. Non-joining of an independent witness intentionally and deliberately, by the Investigating Officer, made the case of the prosecution doubtful. This aspect of the matter, was also not taken into consideration by the trial Court, as a result whereof, it fell into an error in recording conviction and awarding sentence. 12. Even the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were violated by the Investigating Officer. He stated that he did not send any report to the Officer superior with regard to the alleged seizure. No doubt the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, are directory, in nature. 12. Even the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were violated by the Investigating Officer. He stated that he did not send any report to the Officer superior with regard to the alleged seizure. 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 of 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 is left in the mind of the Court, regarding the genuineness of search and seizer. This fact also cast a cloud of doubt, on the prosecution story. 13. 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. 14. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 08.08.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. If he is on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. If he is in custody, he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case.