Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 09.10.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Sheera 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 02.07.1993 Mohinder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector along with other police officials, was present in the area of village Maujgarh and when reached near the bridge of canal minor, from the opposite side, the accused was seen coming on foot. He was carrying a gunny bag on his head. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away. He was apprehended. Search of the bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law. It was found containing 10 kgs. of poppy-husk. A sample of 250 grams was separated. The sample as well as the remaining poppy-husk, were duly sealed with the seal bearing impression MS, 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 Kewal Kumar, Constable ( PW-1 ), Mohinder Singh, ASI, ( PW-2 ), Dinesh Singh, ASI, ( PW-3 ), and Balkar Singh, Inspector, ( PW-4 ). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, tendered into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PF, 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. He, however, produced no evidence, in his defence. 6. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, tendered into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PF, 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. He, however, produced no 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 learned 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 02.07.1993, yet the sample was sent to the Office of the Chemical Examiner, on 08.07.1993. He further submitted that no explanation, whatsoever, was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to why, delay of six 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 Forensic Science Laboratory. 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. 10. 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. 10. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were violated by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, 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, this 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. 11. The link evidence, in the instant case, was also incomplete. Constable Kewal Kumar, PW1, tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.PA. During the course of cross-examination, it was stated by him that on 07.07.1993 Balkar Singh, SHO, did not entrust anything else than the sample to him, for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner. Balkar Singh, Inspector, when appeared in the witness box, as PW4, during the course of cross-examination, also stated that to Constable Kewal Kumar, he handed over only the sample, for being deposited, in the office of the Chemical Examiner and nothing else. It means that the sample impression of the seal, was not handed over to Kewal Kumar, Constable, for depositing the same in the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, there was no material with the Chemical Examiner, to find out, as to whether, the seal on the sample tallied with the sample seal. It means that the sample impression of the seal, was not handed over to Kewal Kumar, Constable, for depositing the same in the office of the Chemical Examiner. Under these circumstances, there was no material with the Chemical Examiner, to find out, as to whether, the seal on the sample tallied with the sample seal. In the absence of such comparison, it could not be said that the sample which was received, in the office of the Chemical Examiner, related to this case, or some other case. When the sample seal was not deposited with the office of the Chemical Examiner by Kewal Kumar, PW1, then how it came to the conclusion, that the seals on the sample tallied with the sample seal. The certificate of the Chemical Examiner, in this regard, could, therefore, be said to be wrong. Under these circumstances, doubt with regard to Ex.PF, report of the Chemical Examiner, was created. The prosecution, therefore, failed to prove that the sample of this case, was sent, and analysis and the report Ex.PF related to the same. As such a doubt was cast on the prosecution story. 12. It was further contended that no independent was joined either from the way, or from the place of alleged recovery. Mohinder Singh, ASI, PW2 during the course of cross-examination, stated that while going towards village Maujgarh one had to pass through the abadi of Dharamkot town, for about one and half kilometers. There are Municipal Commissioners, Lambardars and other respectable in Dharamkot town. He further stated that the police party remained at the spot for about 3-1/2 hours. He further stated that from the place of recovery, a passage leads to another village. He further stated that during their stay at the place of recovery, they did not make an attempt to join any independent witness. Dinesh Kumar, ASI, PW3 during the course of cross-examination, stated that he did not remember that any passerby was requested to become a witness to the recovery. He further stated during the course of cross-examination, that 3/4 persons were searched on the way before reaching the place of recovery. From the conjoint reading of the statements of Mohinder Singh, ASI, PW2 and Dinesh Singh, ASI, PW3, it becomes clear that no effort was made to join an independent witness, despite availability. He further stated during the course of cross-examination, that 3/4 persons were searched on the way before reaching the place of recovery. From the conjoint reading of the statements of Mohinder Singh, ASI, PW2 and Dinesh Singh, ASI, PW3, it becomes clear that no effort was made to join an independent witness, despite availability. Had an independent witness been joined, his evidence would have certainly lent credence, to the case of the prosecution, which is based on the evidence of the official witnesses only. A cloud of doubt was cast, on the case of the prosecution, on account of nonjoining of an independent witness, despite availability. The trial Court, however, failed to take into consideration, this important fact, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. 13. There is no evidence, on record, that the case property and the sample remained un-tampered with until the same (sample) was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Balkar Singh, Inspector, PW4, stated that he handed over the gunny bag, containing poppy husk to Head Constable Hardeep Singh for being produced in the court of Illaqa Magistrate. He further stated that the accused was also sent for being produced in the Court. However, there is no evidence, on record, that the case property was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. Even Hardeep Singh, H.C., to whom Balkar Singh, Inspector, PW4, allegedly handed over the case property, was not examined as prosecution witness. On account of non-examination of Hardeep Singh, HC, to whom the case property was allegedly handed over by Balkar Singh, Inspector, for production before the Illaqa Magistrate, it could not be said that the case property remained un-tampered with, till it remained in his custody. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished as to why Hardeep Singh was not examined. Had any explanation been furnished, in this regard, the matter would be considered, in the light thereof. It appears that the statement of Balkar Singh, Inspector, PW4 regarding production of the case property, before the Illaqa Magistrate, is not correct. During the course of cross-examination, Balkar Singh, Inspector, PW4, stated that there was no entry in the Malkhana register, regarding taking out of the case property, for being produced, in the Court, and then re-deposit of the same, in the Malkhana. He did not prepare any memo, regarding the production of the case property, before him. During the course of cross-examination, Balkar Singh, Inspector, PW4, stated that there was no entry in the Malkhana register, regarding taking out of the case property, for being produced, in the Court, and then re-deposit of the same, in the Malkhana. He did not prepare any memo, regarding the production of the case property, before him. He further stated that he also did not make any statement, before the Illaqa Magistrate, that the case property was being produced before him. This all goes to show that the story with regard to the production of the case property before the Illaqa Magistrate, was concocted. The link evidence was, therefore, incomplete, which cast a doubt on the prosecution case. The trial Court failed to take into consideration, this important fact, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. 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 09.10.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. If he, is on bail, he shall stand discharged of the bail bonds. If he is in custody, he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required in any other case.