JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Accused-Sham Lal was convicted for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short) vide judgment dated 8.1.2000 passed by the Judge Special Court, Mansa. Vide order of even date, accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 15 of the Act passed by the Judge Special Court, Mansa. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-accused. 2. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced here in below:- “The brief facts of the case as advanced by the prosecution are that on 6.11.1996, the Police party headed by SI Hardevinder Singh SHO, Police Station Joga along with his police staff was on patrol duty and they were going in a government Canter No. PB- 03/1017 being driven by Constable Harbans Singh No. 688 from village Joga towards village Annopgarh via pakka road. When the police party reached near the Water-works of village Joga, the accused person was seen on a blue colour Hero Majestic Moped carrying a bag tied on the back seat of the Moped. Suspecting some incriminating material in the bag, he was stopped. During this time, one Gurjit Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of village Joga also passed that way, who was joined with the Police party. The accused disclosed his name as Sham Lal son of Shera Ram, Rajpoot, resident of village Charat Singh Wala road near closed railway fatak, Maur Mandi. The accused was told that the Police wanted to search him and, as such, he has got the option whether he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or before a Magistrate and the accused desired that he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. The option memo of the accused was prepared, which was thumb marked by him and attested by Gurjit Singh son of Joginder Singh r/o village Joga and HC Yadwinder Singh. The option memo is Ex.PB. Thereafter, the wireless message was sent to DSP Shri Joginder Singh Kahlon to come to the spot who reached the spot in his Government Gypsy along with his security men. The option memo is Ex.PB. Thereafter, the wireless message was sent to DSP Shri Joginder Singh Kahlon to come to the spot who reached the spot in his Government Gypsy along with his security men. On reaching the spot, DSP, Sub Division, Mansa, told the accused that he is a Gazetted Officer and the accused consented to be searched before him. On search of the bag, tied on the Moped, poppy husk was recovered. Out of which 100 grams was taken as sample and the remaining poppy husk was weighed which came out 19 Kgs 900 grams. The sample and the bag of poppy husk were sealed with seal ‘HS’ and were taken in custody vide recovery memo Ex.PD along with Moped Hero Majestic. Separate sample seal was also prepared. The recovery memo was attested by Gurjit Singh son of Joginder Singh, DSP Joginder Singh Kahlon and H.C. Yadwinder Singh. The accused was formally arrested and reasons for his arrest were disclosed to him vide Ex.PG . The site plan Ex.PH was drawn. The personal search of the accused was also conducted which is Ex.PE. The ruqa Ex.PF was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which a formal FIR Ex.PF/1 was registered. Special report was sent to the Higher Officers through constable Gurjant Singh. On reaching the Police Station SI Hardevinder Singh, who was also SHO of the Police Station kept the sample, and the case property with him in his safe custody and on the next date, he produced the same before the Illaqa Magistrate, Mansa along with the accused. The learned Magistrate verified the seals of the case property, which were in intact position. The sample was sent to Chemical Examiner for its test, who submitted his report stating therein that the sample was of poppy husk. On completion of the investigations, the challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. 3. On presentation of the challan, the copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were delivered to the accused and, there being a prima-facie case against him, he was charged under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. The independent witness has not been examined by the prosecution. The case property was not deposited by the Investigating Officer in the Malkhana and he had kept the same with him till the sample was sent for chemical analysis. Appellant was alleged to be in possession of 20 kilograms of poppy husk and he has undergone more than about five years of actual sentence. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The official witnesses were acting in discharge of their official duty and have no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. The present case relates to recovery of 20 kilograms of poppy husk from the appellant. This case relates to before the amendment in the Act. The punishment provided under the Act was stringent and in case an accused was found guilty, he was to undergo minimum rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Now, after the amendment of the Act, the quantity of contraband carried by the appellant comes within the noncommercial quantity. Since the punishment was stringent at the relevant time, the prosecution was required to establish its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. There was heavier responsibility on the prosecution to establish its case. Gurjit Singh was, allegedly, joined as an independent witness at the time of recovery but the said witness was not examined by the prosecution on the plea that he had been won over by the accused. The case property was not deposited in the Malkhana by PW2 Hardevinder Singh and rather he had kept the same in his custody from 6.11.1996 to 14.11.1996 till it was sent for chemical analysis. 7. PW2 Hardevinder Singh deposed that he had sent Constable Kesar Singh to deposit the samples for chemical analysis and he had produced the receipt before him on 14.11.1996. 8. 7. PW2 Hardevinder Singh deposed that he had sent Constable Kesar Singh to deposit the samples for chemical analysis and he had produced the receipt before him on 14.11.1996. 8. PW1 Kesar Singh deposed that he had been handed over the samples by the Station House Officer Hardevinder Singh on 14.11.1996 for depositing the same with the laboratory for chemical analysis and he had handed over the receipt to MHC. On the other hand, PW2 has deposed that the receipt was handed over to him by Constable Kesar Singh. The said discrepancy in the statements of material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. ------------