Judgment ( 1. ) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of their conviction and sentence dated 28. 11. 1994 passed by the Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special case No. 106/92 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (B) (1) of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each; in default r. I. for six months. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION story, in short, is that in the night of 3. 5. 1992 at about 9. 45 p. m. at village Sarwai, Dist. Chhatarpur, the police party raided a Jeep No. UTB0/2022 wherein the appellants were travelling. On search of the jeep, 700 grams of Ganja was found in the jeep. A seizure memo of recovery of Ganja was prepared which is Ex. P-2 and jeep was seized through Ex. P-3. In the present case, out of the two independent witnesses of aforesaid seizure, the prosecution has examined only one witness i. e. Kamtu (PW-2), who was declared hostile by the prosecution. Shri Rajendra Singh was examined by the prosecution as pw-1. He is a police constable. Likewise, Shri Awadh Pratap Singh (PW-3) is also a constable. These two witnesses are said to have accompanied the police party and were also present at the time of search. ( 3. ) IT is contended on behalf of the appellants that the seizure memo Ex. P-2 creates a doubt on whole of the prosecution story. It is submitted by him that according to the seizure memo Ex. P-2 the time of search is recorded as 21. 45 hrs on 3. 5. 1992 and as per the version of Shri Rajendra Singh (PW-1) before the Court the search was made at about 3 p. m. So far as PW-3 Constable, Shri Awadh pratap Singh is concerned, he has deposed that seizure was conducted in the night of 3. 5. 1992 at 21. 45 hrs. On this basis, it is contended that once there is a variation with respect to the time of preparation of seizure memo of Ganja, Ex. P-2, then the prosecution ought to have examined both the independent witnesses of the preparation of the seizure memo. 5. 1992 at 21. 45 hrs. On this basis, it is contended that once there is a variation with respect to the time of preparation of seizure memo of Ganja, Ex. P-2, then the prosecution ought to have examined both the independent witnesses of the preparation of the seizure memo. It is submitted that PW-2 Kamtu, the witness of preparation of seizure memo, has not supported and proved the seizure memo and so far as Mahesh i. e. another independent witness of seizure memo is concerned, he has not been examined by the prosecution. ( 4. ) IT is seen that there is no explanation offered on behalf of the State even during the course of argument as to why the prosecution has not examined another independent witness i. e. Mahesh to prove the seizure memos. Further, on the basis of the statements of PW-1 Rajendra Singh and PW-3 Awadh Pratap singh, there is a variation and material contradiction with respect to time of seizure of the Ganja and prosecution has failed to offer any explanation for the same. ( 5. ) APART from the aforesaid, it is also to be seen that on the seizure memo the crime number is also mentioned which means that at first the crime was registered and thereafter the seizure memo was prepared. According to the seizure memos Ex. P-2 and p-3 the seizure was effected in front of the office of Rural electricity Cooperative Society. Once the crime was recorded at first in the police station then it is difficult to believe that the seizure has been effected in front of the office of the Rural electricity Cooperative Society. In this respect, the statements of pw-1 and PW-3, who are the witnesses present at the time of raid by the police party, also fail to inspire any confidence in the prosecution story. Out of the two independent witnesses the prosecution has only examined Kamtu (PW-2) and Mahesh has not been examined. Since the seizure memo itself is found to be unbelievable, therefore, whole of the prosecution story fails in the present case. ( 6. ) IT is also to be noted that the seizure memo of Ganja i. e. Ex. P-2 also does not show as to whom the said Ganja was seized from. Though it is reflected from Ex. Since the seizure memo itself is found to be unbelievable, therefore, whole of the prosecution story fails in the present case. ( 6. ) IT is also to be noted that the seizure memo of Ganja i. e. Ex. P-2 also does not show as to whom the said Ganja was seized from. Though it is reflected from Ex. P-2 that it was seized from the jeep itself but in the said vehicle who was in possession of the same, has not been shown in the seizure memo. It was the defence of the appellants that they were returning after attending a function from the house of Sarpanch and there had been some hot discussion with the police and for this reason they have been falsely implicated and a false story of seizure of Ganja has been concocted. ( 7. ) IN view of the overall assessment of the case, since the seizure memo Ex. P-2 itself is found to be unbelievable, therefore, in the light of the statements of PW-1 Rajendra Singh and PW-3 awadh Pratap Singh wherein there is material contradiction relating to time of search and Mahesh, one of the independent witness to the seizure memo having not been examined and PW-2 kamtu having not supported the prosecution, whole of the prosecution story creates a doubt in the mind of this Court. Under these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to be given a benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the present appeal and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellants is set aside. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall stand discharged. The fine amount deposited by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants. ( 8. ) THE present appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent, indicated above. No order as to costs.