JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 24.1.2005 passed by the court of learned Judge, Special Court, Bathinda whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Chattarpal Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act) and in default of payment of fine, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. 2. As set up by the prosecution, on 19.4.2001 Baljinder Kumar Sub Inspector alongwith other police officials had laid ‘naka’(picket) on the bridge of drain within the revenue limits of village Bhunder. Meanwhile, the accused while carrying a plastic bag on his head came. On catching sight of the police party, he made an attempt to give a slip. Suspecting that there was some contraband in the bag, he was intercepted. In the meantime, Jagdeep Singh came there on cycle. He was associated with the police party. On search of the bag, poppy husk was recovered. 250 grams poppy husk was drawn to serve as a sample and converted into a parcel. The residue of the bag when weighed came to 9.750 kgs which was also turned into a parcel. These parcels were sealed with seal BK belonging to Baljinder Kumar Inspector, Investigator. The accused was put under arrest. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the court for trial of the accused. 3. The accused was charged under Section 15 of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Inspector Baljinder Kumar PW-1, Constable Hardev Singh PW-2, DSP Amrik Singh PW-3 and closed its evidence. 4. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. In his defence, he examined Sat Pal DW-1. 5. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. 6. This case was displayed on the net many times, but none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal. 6. This case was displayed on the net many times, but none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. I have heard the learned State counsel besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 7. As pleaded in the grounds of appeal, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act have not been adhered to. The learned State counsel maintained that a glance through the consent memo Ex.PA purportedly recorded by Baljinder Kumar Inspector would reveal that the accused was offered to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate it is indicative of due adherence to the provisions of Section 50. This contention seems to be attractive but without substance. Ex.PB is the notice, which purports to have been served by Amrik Singh, the then D.S.P. PW-3. He has solemnly affirmed that “ I reached at the spot and I introduced myself to the accused that I am D.S.P. and Gazetted Officer of police and informed that a bag in his possession is to be searched and some contraband articles are suspected to be in that bag. You have right to be got searched yourself before a Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer to which the accused opted to be searched in my presence vide memo Ex.PB.” As the contents of Ex.PB proceed the accused was offered to have his personal search either before this officer or any Magistrate. Obviously, this documentary evidence is in sharp contradiction with the oral evidence tendered by Amrik Singh (sic) who has ostensibly improved upon Ex.PB by stating that the accused was offered to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Axiomatically, it is a case of partial offer. In Abdul Rahiman Vs. State of Kerala 2002(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal)404 the accused was given choice of search before Gazetted Officer or Senior Officer. No offer of search before Magistrate was made. The Supreme Court held that offer is not valid under Section 50 of the Act. In the present one, the inbuilt engrafted by the legislature in the language of Section 50 ibid has not been complied with in stricto senso. Sequelly, the conviction is not maintainable. 8. In re: Satnam Singh Vs. No offer of search before Magistrate was made. The Supreme Court held that offer is not valid under Section 50 of the Act. In the present one, the inbuilt engrafted by the legislature in the language of Section 50 ibid has not been complied with in stricto senso. Sequelly, the conviction is not maintainable. 8. In re: Satnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 396 it has been held that “when the prosecution alleges that material witness has been won over by the accused, still it is necessary that such witness must be produced and examined at the trial to reveal the truth, especially when the seal is allegedly entrusted to him after use.” In the instant one, it is specific case of the prosecution that seal after use was entrusted to Jagdeep Singh private witness after its use. If he had been tendered for cross-examination, it could have been elicited as to after how many days the seal was returned by him. It assumes greater importance as admittedly sample in this case was dispatched to the Chemical Examiner after six days. An identical view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in re: State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 266. Thus, the non production of Jagdeep Singh at the trial goes against the prosecution. 9. It is in the cross-examination of the Investigator that “at present plastic bag has two small holes. There is no overwriting on digit 9 on chit on the bag but the same is dark, but I do not know who darkened the digit 9.” If this evidence is taken on its face value the possibility of tampering with its contents cannot be ruled out. The contents of the bag through these holes could be taken out and in their place some other substance could be poured in. Thus, it is very difficult to say that the allegedly recovered poppy husk was produced as case property at the trial. So, it is held that the prosecution has not been able to connect the appellant with the case property. As surfaced in the cross-examination of Amrik Singh (sic) the place of recovery is a thorough fare. If it was so, some passers by could have been joined in the investigation. 10. In view of the above infirmities, this appeal is accepted. As surfaced in the cross-examination of Amrik Singh (sic) the place of recovery is a thorough fare. If it was so, some passers by could have been joined in the investigation. 10. In view of the above infirmities, this appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment/order of sentence is set aside. 11. Since the appeal has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous, if any, also stand disposed of. ---------------