Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1 This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2002, and the order of sentence dated 20.08.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, vide which it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act only) and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period often years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for having been found in possession of 1 Kg and 250 grams charas, without any permit or licence, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. 2 The facts, in brief, are that on 13.06.2000 Hoshiar Singh, Sub- Inspector, alongwith other police officials, was present at Bus Stand, Jhajjar, in connection with patrol duty, where he received a secret information against the accused that he was indulging in paddling of contraband, had brought 1 Kg and 250 grams charas, and was in search of suitable customers to dispose of the same. Immediately thereafter, the accused reached in the vicinity of the bus stop. The informant indicated towards the accused, as a result whereof, he was apprehended by Hoshiar Singh, Sub Inspector. A wireless message was sent to Devi Dayal, Dy. S.P. Jhajjar, who reached there. The search of the accused was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. During the course of search, a packet, containing charas was recovered from the fold of the trouser of the accused. On weighment, it was found to be 1 Kg. and 250 grams. Sample of 100 grams charas was taken out and the remaining charas was kept in a separate container. The sample, and the container, containing the remaining charas, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. The accused was arrested. 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 obsessions, charge under Section 20 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 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 obsessions, charge under Section 20 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 Telu Ram, Head Constable, (PW-1), who tendered his affidavit, Ex. PA, Sis Ram, Constable, (PW-2), who also tendered his affidavit, Ex. PB, Dalip Singh, Head Constable, (PW-3), who delivered the special report, Devi Dayal, DSP (PW-4), a witness to the search and seizure, Hoshiar Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-5), Investigating Officer, who proved various memos, Virender Kumar, Constable, (PW-6), who recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, Amar Dass, Sub Inspector, (PW-7), who recorded the staternent of Randhir Singh, SI under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Jai Kishan, Assistant Sub-Inspector, (PW-8), in whose presence the search of the accused was conducted and the recovery was effected, and Randhir Singh, Inspector, (PW-9), before whom the accused, case property and the sample parcel, were produced and who verified the same and affixed his own seal. Thereafter, the evidence of the prosecution was closed, after tendering report Ex. PH of Forensic Science Laboratory. 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 produce 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 appellant. 8 I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the base, carefully. 9 The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that, no independent witness, was joined, by the Investigating Officer, at the time of alleged search and seizure. He further submitted that, even no real and sincere efforts, were made, by the Investigating Officer, to join an independent witness. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. He further submitted that, even no real and sincere efforts, were made, by the Investigating Officer, to join an independent witness. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. The alleged recovery, in this case, was effected from the accused, on receipt of secret information. Hoshiar Singh, Sub-Inspector, (PW-5), Investigating Officer, stated that there are residential houses near the bus-stop, where the picket had been held. He further stated that he asked the witnesses, from the public, to join the search, but they expressed their helplessness. He further stated that he could not tell the names of the persons, who refused to join. He further stated that he did not take any action against them. From the statement of Hoshiar Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-5), it is evident that no real and sincere effort, was made by him to join an independent witness. Had real and sincere effort, been made, by the Investigating Officer, to join an independent witness, he would have certainly recorded the names of the persons, to whom, he asked to join the search and seizure, but he refused to do so, in the case diary or in the documents, prepared at the spot. Even he did not take any action against them. It appears that, only a cock and bull story, was put-forth, by the Investigating Officer, just with a view to cover up his lapse of non-joining of an independent witness despite availability. Had any real and sincere effort, been made, to join an independent witness, the minimum stringent punishment is provided for the offences, punishable under the Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to search seizure and arrest shall apply to the extent, the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, it was imperative, on the part of the Investigating Officer, to join an independent witness, at the time of the alleged search, and seizure or at least to make a genuine, sincere and real effort, to join such a witness. The search and seizure before an independent wintess, would have imparted much more authenticity, and creditworthiness, to the proceedings, so conducted. It would have also verily strengthened the prosecution case. The said safeguard was also intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and high-handed action, against the authorized Officer. The search and seizure before an independent wintess, would have imparted much more authenticity, and creditworthiness, to the proceedings, so conducted. It would have also verily strengthened the prosecution case. The said safeguard was also intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and high-handed action, against the authorized Officer. In other words, the Legislature, in its wisdom, considered it necessary to provide such a statutory safeguard, to lend credibility to the procedure, relating to search and seizure, keeping in view the severe punishment, prescribed under the Act. That being so, it was imperative for the authorized Officer, to follow the reasonable, fair and just procedure, as envisaged by the Statute, and failure to do so, must be viewed with suspicion. The legitimacy of judicial procedure, may come under cloud, if the Court is seen to condone acts of violation of statutory safeguards, committed by the authorized officer, during search and seizure operation and may also undermine respect of law. That cannot be permitted. In State of Punjab v. Bhupinder Singh 2001 (01) RCR (Crl.) 356, a Division Bench of this Court, held the case of the prosecution, to be doubtful, on account of non-joining of an independent witness, though the recovery was effected from a busy locality. In State of Punjab v. Ram Chand, 2001 (1) RCR (Crl.) 817, a Division Bench of this Court, held that it was imperative to join an independent witness, to vouchsafe the fair investigation. On account of non- joining of an independent witness, it was held that the accused was entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. It is, no doubt, true that, in the absence of corroboration through an independent source, the evidence of the official witnesses, can not be disbelieved and distrusted, blind-foldedly, if the same is found to be creditworthy. However, when the evidence of the official witnesses, is found to be not cogent convincing, reliable and trustworthy, then on account of non corroboration thereof, through an independent source, a doubt is cast, on the prosecution case. In the instant case, in re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the same has not been found to be trustworthy and reliable. the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, on account of non-joining of an independent witness, a doubt is cast on the prosecution story. In the instant case, in re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the same has not been found to be trustworthy and reliable. the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, on account of non-joining of an independent witness, a doubt is cast on the prosecution story. 10 It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that even the case of the prosecution, which solely hinges on the evidence of the official witnesses, was doubtful, on the ground, that Virender Kumar, Constable, (PW- 6), during the course of cross-examination stated that the recovery was effected from the house of the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. Virender Kumar, Constable, (PW-6), during the course of cross-examination, stated that the charas was recovered from the house of Suresh, in his presence, and in the presence of Jai Kishan, Assistant Sub Inspector, and Man Singh, Constable, by Hoshiar Singh, Sub Inspector, at about 4.00/4.15 PM. In case, the alleged recovery had been effected from the house of the accused, ten how the recovery was allegedly effected from the place, where the picket had been held. The statements of the remaining witnesses, with regard to the place of the alleged search and seizure, are completely contradictory, to the statement of Virender Kumar, Constable, (PW-6). In the absence of corroboration through an independent source, to the statements of the official witnesses, this material contradiction, in the evidence of the official witnesses, clearly caused a dent, in the prosecution story. It can be said that either one of the prosecution witnesses, was not present, at the time of the alleged search and seizure or no recovery was effected from the accused; as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. The case of the prosecution became doubtful on account of this reason also. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being correct, is accepted. 11 It was next contended, by the Counsel for the appellant, that though the alleged recovery, was effected, on 13.06.2000, yet the sample, was sent, to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, on 19.06.2000, i.e. after a delay of 06 days, which remained unexplained and, as such, the possibility of tampering with the same, until, it reached the office of the Laboratory, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, appears to be correct. No explanation, whatsoever, has been furnished, by the prosecution witnesses, with regard to the delay of six days, in sending the sample parcel of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is the duty of the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that none tampered with the sample parcel, till, the same reached the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Since, the sample parcel was allegedly sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, after six days, it could not be safely held that the same remained untampered with. This fact casts a shadow of doubt on the case of the prosecution. In Gian 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. In State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 521: 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 58, (Supreme Court), the contraband remained in the Malkhana for 15 days. The malkhana register was not produced, to prove that It was so kept in the malkhana, till the sample was handed over to the Constable. In these circumstances, in the aforesaid case, the appellant was acquitted. In Ramji Singh v. State of Haryana 2007 (3) . RCR (Criminal) 452, the sample was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner after 72 hours, and the seal remained with the police official, and had not been handed over to any independent witness. Under these circumstances, it was held that this circumstance would prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. No doubt, the prosecution could lead other independent evidence, to prove that none tampered with the sample, till it reached the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The other evidence, produced by the prosecution, in this case, to prove the link evidence, is not only deficient but also unreliable. In these circumstances, the . principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The other evidence, produced by the prosecution, in this case, to prove the link evidence, is not only deficient but also unreliable. In these circumstances, the . principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The delay of six days, in sending the sample parcel, to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, and non-strict proof, by the prosecution, that the same was not tampered with, till it was deposited, in that office, must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being correct, is accepted. 12 It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that even the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, were not complied with intentionally and deliberately, as the case property, was not produced, before the Area Magistrate for verification, at any point of time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, this regard, appears" to be correct. Neither Hoshiar Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-5), the Investigating Officer, nor Randhir Singh, Inspector, (PW-9), the Station House Officer, at the relevant time, before whom the case property and the sample parcel were produced, stated even a single word that the same were produced before the Area Magistrate. The perusal of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, clearly reveals that the case property and the sample are required to be produced before the Magistrate, so as to ensure, that there was no false implication of the accused, and that actually a specific quantity of the contraband, was recovered from the accused. No doubt, the provisions of Section 55 of the Act are directly or in nature, yet that does not mean that the same should be deliberately and intentionally branched. Had any explanation been furnished, by the Investigating Officer, as to what prevented him from producing the case property, before the area Magistrate, immediately after the search and seizure, the matter would have been considered, in the light thereof, but in the absence of any explanation having been furnished, by the Investigating Officer, in this regard the Court cannot coin any of its own, to fit in with the prosecution case. Since, there was deliberate and intentional breach of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, by the Investigating Officer, the same cannot be condoned. In Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 702 (S.C.), it was held that non-complaince of the provisions of Sections 52, 55 and 57, which are, no doubt, directory, and violation thereof, would not ipso facto vitiate the trial or conviction. However, the Investigating Officer, cannot totally ignore these provisions, and such failure will have bearing on the appreciation of evidence, regarding search of the accused and seizure. the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. As stated above, since the Investigating Officer, intentionally and deliberately breached the provisions of Section 55, he could not say that the provisions of Section 55, being directory, in nature he was not bound to comply with the same. If such a stand of the Investigating Officer, is taken as correct then the provisions of the Act, which are directly, in nature, would be flouted with impunity, by him. Compliance of the said provision, is an indicator, towards the reasonable, fair and just procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer, during the course of search and seizure. Non-compliance of such a provision, deliberately and intentionally, must be viewed with suspicion. Legitimacy of the judicial procedure; may come under cloud, if the Court seems to condone acts of violation of committed by an authorized officer, during search and seizure operation. Such an attitude of the investigating agency, cannot be permitted. Intentional and deliberate breach of the provisions of Section 55, certainly caused prejudice, to the accused, and cast a doubt on the prosecution story. The trial Court, did not take into consideration, this aspect of the matter as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error in recording conviction. 13 No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties. 14 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. Had the trial Court taken into consideration, the aforesaid infirmities and lacunae, it would not have reached he conclusion that the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Had the trial Court taken into consideration, the aforesaid infirmities and lacunae, it would not have reached he conclusion that the accused committed the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence are, thus, liable to be set aside. 15 For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore the appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction dated 19.8.2002, and the order of sentence dated 20.8.2002, are set aside. The appellant, shall stand acquitted of the charge, framed against him. If he on bail, he shall stand discharged of his bail bonds. If, he is in custody, he shall be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case. Appeal acceted