Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 9.12.1997, and the order of sentence of the even date, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Dev 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 two years. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 14.5.1997, Jaswinder Singh, ASI, alongwith Amrik Singh, HC, and other police officials, was present on the katcha passage, near the bridge of canal minor in the limits of village Kulburchha, by holding a picket, when Gurbachan Singh, independent witness, came there per-chance. Jaswinder Singh, ASI, was talking to him, when the accused came on a bicycle, from the side of village Achral Khurd. On seeing the police party, he tried to turn back, and, at that time, he was carrying a gunny bag on the carrier of his bicycle. He was apprehended, on the basis of suspicion. The search of the gunny bag, being carried by the accused, on his bicycle, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law. It was found containing 35 kgs. Poppy-husk. A sample of 250 grams, was taken out of the same. The sample, and the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression JS. Thereafter, the case property was taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PC. The accused was arrested. A memo regarding the grounds of arrest, was prepared. Ruqa Ex.PE was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex.PE/1, was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared, with correct marginal notes. 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 judicial trial. 4. 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 judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Raghbir Singh, Constable (PW-1), Amrik Singh, HC (PW-2), Jaswinder Singh, ASI (PW-3), Didar Singh, Constable (PW-4), Rajvir Singh, Inspector (PW-5), and Gurdev Singh, MHC (PW-6). Thereafter, the Addl. 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, produced no evidence, in his 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 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 alleged recovery was effected in this case on 14.5.1997, whereas the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 19.5.1997, and the analysis was completed on 19.6.1997. He further contended that on account of delay, in sending the sample, which remained unexplained, the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out. No explanation, whatsoever, was furnished, as to why the sample was not sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner for about 5/6 days. 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. 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. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that Gurbachan Singh, public witness, was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of effecting the alleged recovery, from the accused. However, Gurbachan Singh, public witness, was not examined, and was given up as won over, by the Addl. PP for the State. Merely stating that Gurbachan Singh had sided with the accused, without any valid ground, could not be said to be a sufficient circumstance, for giving up such a witness, as won over. It appears that Gurbachan Singh, independent witness, 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 Gurbachan Singh, independent witness, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. Similar principle of law was laid down in State of Punjab v. Nachattar Singh @ Bania 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1040, (Division Bench) (P&H). On account of non-examination of Gurbachan Singh, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that no report under Section 57 of the Act, was sent to the Officer Superior, by the Investigating Officer, as a result whereof, prejudice was caused to the accused. No doubt, the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, are not mandatory, in nature. However, that does not mean that the Investigating Officer, is not required to comply with the same. No explanation was furnished, as to what prevented the Investigating Officer, from sending the report, as envisaged by the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, to the Officer Superior. Had any explanation been furnished, in this regard, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof. 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. Had any explanation been furnished, in this regard, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof. 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. Since, the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, were intentionally and deliberately not complied with, by the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, prejudice was caused to the accused, as a result whereof, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. 12. Ex.PA, is the affidavit of Raghbir Singh, Constable. The sample was allegedly sent though him, to the Office of the Chemical Examiner, for deposit. In Para No.3 of his affidavit, it was testified by Raghbir Singh, Constable that on 19.5.1997, Gurdev Singh, MHC, handed over to him, a sample parcel, containing 250 grams poppy-husk in intact condition, and he deposited the same, in the office of the Chemical Examiner. He further testified vide his affidavit that after deposit of the sample parcel, he handed over the receipt regarding the deposit to Gurdev Singh, MHC. In Para No.3 of his affidavit, he did not state that sample impression of the seal was handed over to him and that the same was also deposited by him in the office of the Chemical Examiner. Since, he did not deposit the sample impression of the seal, in the office of the Chemical Examiner, it is not known, as to how in Ex.PG, the Chemical Examiner, recorded the certificate that the seals on the sample, tallied with the sample seal. He could compare the seals, on the sample, with the sample seal, had the latter been sent to him. Such certificate of the Chemical Examiner, therefore, does not appear to be correct. Under these circumstances, it could not be said, as to whether, the sample was received in the office of the Chemical Examiner, with seals intact, and as to whether, the said parcel bore the same seals, as were allegedly affixed by the Investigation Officer and the SHO, on the same. In State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme Court), the sample seal was not sent to the Laboratory, at the time of sending the sample parcel. The Apex Court, held that the case of the prosecution was doubtful, on account of this reason. In State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme Court), the sample seal was not sent to the Laboratory, at the time of sending the sample parcel. The Apex Court, held that the case of the prosecution was doubtful, on account of this reason. In this view of the matter, the case of the prosecution also became doubtful. The trial Court, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter, as a result whereof, miscarriage of justice occasioned. 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. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the aforesaid infirmities and lacunae, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in recording conviction and awarding sentence. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence are, therefore, 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 9.12.1997, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. If, he is on bail, then he is discharged of the bail bonds. If, he is in custody, then he shall be released immediately, if not required, in any other case.