Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 8.5.1997, and the order of sentence dated 12.5.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Paramjit 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 2 = years. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Rajender Parshad of G.R.P. Rewari was present alongwith other police officials on 13.8.1995 at Railway Station, Loharu, at about 1.17 PM at platform No.1, when Bikaner Express came from the side of Sadulpur and stopped at Railway Station. Two persons alighted from a second class compartment of the train. Each was carrying a bag, full of something. On noticing the police party, they turned towards the side of the train. They were, however, apprehended, on suspicion. The name of one of them was Paramjit Singh. Search of the bag, being carried by him, was conducted, which resulted into the recovery of 16 Kgs. 100 grams of poppyhusk. A sample of 100 grams was taken out therefrom. The sample and the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into two parcels, duly sealed with the seal, bearing impression DS and taken into possession. The accused was arrested. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 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 judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Satish Chander, Tehsildar, Loharu (PW-1), and Rajender Parshad, SI (PW-2). Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution 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. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in his defence. 6. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution 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. He, however, did not lead any 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, submitted that the affidavit Ex.PB of Jagdish, Constable, and Ex.PC of Sunder Singh, Constable, were tendered into evidence, but both of them, were not offered for cross-examination, to the accused, and, as such, he was deprived of his valuable right of shaking their veracity. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. The accused has a valuable and indefeasible right to cross-examine the witnesses. He must be afforded an opportunity to do so. It is a different matter, whether he avails of that opportunity or not. The prosecution cannot take up the plea, that when the affidavits of the witnesses were tendered into evidence, and they were not present, the accused could ask that he wanted to cross-examine them, and, thus, they could be produced. By not producing these witnesses, for cross-examination by the accused, he was deprived of his valuable and indefeasible right. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 611, the affidavits of police Constables were tendered into evidence, but they were not produced, in the Court for cross-examination. In these circumstances, it was held that the link evidence was missing, which was a material infirmity, and, ultimately, the conviction was set aside. In Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) RCR 627, the affidavits of the Police Constable and the HC, were tendered into evidence, but both them, were not kept present, in the Court for cross-examination. In these circumstances, it was held that the link evidence was missing, which was a material infirmity, and, ultimately, the conviction was set aside. In Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995 (3) RCR 627, the affidavits of the Police Constable and the HC, were tendered into evidence, but both them, were not kept present, in the Court for cross-examination. In these circumstances, it was held that the affidavits could not be read into evidence and, as such, the link evidence was incomplete and the case of the prosecution was bound to fail. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Under these circumstances, both these affidavits, without offering the deponents thereof, for cross-examination to the accused, could not be read into evidence, and the appellant/accused is liable to be acquitted. The trial Court, in my opinion, was wrong in holding that the link evidence was complete. 10. It was next contended by the Counsel for that appellant, that the alleged recovery was effected on 13.8.1995, whereas, the sample was allegedly sent to the Office of the Chemical Examiner on 20.9.1995 i.e. after a delay of more than one month. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished, as to why the sample was not sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, for about more than one month. 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. 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, and the link evidence was incomplete. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted in that case. On account of this infirmity, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 11. Ex.PB and Ex.PC, are the affidavits of Jagdish and Sunder Singh, Constables, respectively. Under these circumstances, it was held that the possibility of tampering with the sample, could not be ruled out, and the link evidence was incomplete. Ultimately, the appellant was acquitted in that case. On account of this infirmity, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 11. Ex.PB and Ex.PC, are the affidavits of Jagdish and Sunder Singh, Constables, respectively. In Para 3 of affidavit Ex.PC, it was stated by Sunder Singh, Constable, that he handed over the sample bearing the seals DS and BS to Jagdish, Constable, who deposited the same, on the same day, in the Office of the Forensic Science Laboratory Haryana, Madhuban and delivered the receipt to him, regarding deposit. He further stated that, during this period, none tampered with the same. Since, the sample seal according to Sunder Singh, Constable was not handed over by him to Jagdish, Constable, nor did he deposit the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory, the question of tallying the seals, on the sample parcel with the specimen seal, did not at all arise by the said Laboratory. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove that none tampered with the sample, till it reached the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to do so. The link evidence was, therefore, incomplete. The trial Court failed to take into consideration, this important fact, as a result whereof, the miscarriage of justice occasioned. 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 8.5.1997, and the order of sentence dated 12.5.1997, are set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of the charge framed against him. He is discharged of the bail bonds.