Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.1997, and the order of sentence dated 02.09.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal, 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 two years. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 16.09.1994 Inspector Kritpal Singh along with Head Constable Balwan Singh and other police officials, was present, on patrol duty, near village Amupur. When the police party reached near the tubewell of Nishan Singh, one Bahadar Singh son of Takhar Singh met it. In the meantime, the accused was seen coming with a gunny bag on his head. On seeing the police party, he changed his direction and started walking towards the fields with fast speed. On suspicion, he was apprehended. He disclosed his name as Chattar Singh son of Sadha Singh. Search of the gunny bag, being carried by him, was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law, in the presence of Chanda Singh, DSP, who was called by sending a VT message, which resulted into the recovery of 30 Kgs of poppy husk. Sample of 250 grams, was drawn. The sample and the remaining poppy husk were converted into parcels, sealed with the seal, bearing impression "RK", and taken into possession, vide recovery memo, prepared at the spot. Sample seal was handed over to Bahadar Singh. The site plan of the place of recovery, was also prepared. The accused was arrested. On reaching the Police Station, the entire case property was deposited with the Station House Officer, on the same day, in intact condition. The samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner for test. After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented. 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. After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented. 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 Chanda Singh, DSP, (PW-1), and Kritpal Singh, Inspector, (PW-2). Affidavits Ex.PA of H.C. Ram Kumar, Ex.PB of Constable Dharam Singh and Ex.PC, report of Chemical Examiner were tendered into evidence. Bahadur Singh, an independent witness, was given up as won over by the accused. Thereafter, the Addl. PP 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. However, he did not lead any evidence, in defence. 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 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. It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that though the alleged recovery was effected from the accused/appellant on 16.09.1994, yet the sample was sent to the Office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, on 26.09.1994. He further submitted that no explanation, whatsoever, was furnished by the prosecution witnesses, as to why, delay of ten 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. 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 the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, delay in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, cast a doubt, regarding the intact condition of the same, until; it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 10. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that though independent witness Bahadur Singh, was joined by the Police, yet he was not examined, and, as such, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. No doubt, vide statement dated 31.07.1995, the Public Prosecutor for the State, gave up PW Bahadur Singh, as won over by the accused, as per the information supplied by the police. There is nothing, on record, that the Investigating Officer of this case supplied information in writing or orally to the Public Prosecutor for the State, that for specific reasons, this witness was not going to support the case of the prosecution. There is also, no evidence, on record, that after taking into consideration those specific reasons, the Public Prosecutor for the State, took the decision that Bhadur Singh, PW had sided with the accused and, therefore, his examination would damage the case of the prosecution. There must be valid reasons with the Public Prosecutor for the State, for giving up an independent witness, who was joined by the police at the time of recovery. If the valid reasons for giving up such a witness, as won over are neither furnished, nor are spelt out, from the circumstances of the case, then it can be said that decision of the Public Prosecutor for the State for giving up such a witness, as won over by the accused, was not justified. In the instant case, for the reasons recorded above, the decision of the Public Prosecutor for the State, for giving up Bahadur Singh,PW, an independent witness, as won over, was not at all justified. It can, therefore, be said that he was not intentionally and deliberately examined, so as to prevent the truth from coming on the record. In the instant case, for the reasons recorded above, the decision of the Public Prosecutor for the State, for giving up Bahadur Singh,PW, an independent witness, as won over, was not at all justified. It can, therefore, be said that he was not intentionally and deliberately examined, so as to prevent the truth from coming on the record. Had Bahadur Singh, PW, an independent witness been examined, light would have been thrown, as to the circumstances, under which the accused was allegedly apprehended and the recovery was allegedly effected from him. Since Bahadur Singh, PW, an independent witness, was withheld by the prosecution, without any justifiable reason, adverse inference, could be drawn against it, and if he had been examined, he would have certainly not supported the case of the prosecution. Non-examination of Bahadur Singh, independent witness, 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 Bahadur Singh, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 11. It was next contended that the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were violated by the Investigating Officer, in as much as, report to the Officer superior with regard to the alleged seizure, was not sent. 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 was cast on the prosecution story. This fact also cast a cloud of doubt on the prosecution story. 12. 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. 12. 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. 13. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction dated 29.08.1997, and the order of sentence dated 02.09.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. If he is on bail, he shall be 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.