JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J. - This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 14.05.2003 passed by the Judge, Special Court, Bathinda, convicting the accused and slapping him with the sentence of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lac under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein referred as the Act). 2. On 14.07.2001 Inspector Arashdeep Singh along with ASI Jugraj Singh and other police officials including lady Constables Jaswinder Kaur and Sukhjit Kaur while travelling in Government Canter, was going for patrolling towards village Nehianwala Lakhisar. When they reached near the go-down situated in the revenue estate of village Nehianwala they associated Atma Singh and when they were going towards Mehma Sarja via Kacha path and reached near the bridge of canal minor in the area of village Mehma Sarja, accused along with his wife Sukhpreet Kaur was seen coming on his scooter bearing registration No. PB-10- AC-2436. On suspicion they were apprehended and after seeking their option of search by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate vide consent Memos Exs.PA and PB, respectively. DSP Bhupinder Singh was called who reached the spot and disclosed his identity to the accused, and after seeking their consent to be searched before him vide consent memos Ex.PC and Ex.PD, SI Arashdeep Singh, as directed by DSP Bhupinder Singh effected personal search of the accused Surjit Singh. On personal search of accused Surjit Singh opium wrapped in a glazed paper tied along with Parna around his waist was detected, out of which 50 grams of opium was separated as sample and on weighment of the remaining opium it came out to be 2 kilograms and 950 grams. The bulk opium as well as sample were parcelled and sealed with the seal bearing impression AS and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PE. On further personal search of accused Surjit Singh, a sum of Rs. 800/- were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PF. On personal search of Sukhjeet Kaur by lady constable, a sum of Rs. 200/- were recovered which were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PG. Ruqua Ex.PH was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PH/1 was registered at Police Station Nehianwala. Special Report Ex.PL was sent to the Higher Authorities. 3. On personal search of Sukhjeet Kaur by lady constable, a sum of Rs. 200/- were recovered which were taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex.PG. Ruqua Ex.PH was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR Ex.PH/1 was registered at Police Station Nehianwala. Special Report Ex.PL was sent to the Higher Authorities. 3. During investigation the Investigating Officer found Sukhjeet Kaur to be innocent, therefore, she was got discharged from the Magistrate under section 169 Criminal Procedure Code 4. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, accused Surjit Singh was challaned. 5. On commitment accused was charged under section 18 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. 6. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined Inspector Arashdeep Singh (PW 1), Bhupinder Singh DSP (PW 2) and constable Manjit Singh PW 3. After tendering report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PX and giving up Atma Singh as having been won over, the prosecution closed its evidence. 7. When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He further explained that he was implicated falsely at the instance of Bikkar Singh, Sarpanch against whom he had lost the election of Sarpanch. He had relations with Inspector Arashdeep Singh. Later on during inquiry, Sukhpreet Kaur was found to be innocent. In defence, the accused examined Jagsir Singh (DW 1), C-II Gurcharan Singh (DW 2), Dalip Kaur (DW 3), ASI Gurvir Singh (DW 4). He also tendered into evidence copy of FIRs Ex.DB and DC and telegrams Ex.DD, Ex.DE and Ex.DF. Atma Singh was also cited as a witness by the police in those cases. 8. Trial resulted into conviction. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgment of conviction, has urged that no independent witness from the place of recovery was associated. Atma Singh who was associated by the Investigating Officer on his way was a most convenient witness of the police. He being the stock witness could be introduced at any time. His presence at the spot is doubtful. Recovery of the opium is not proved to the hilt as the presence of Bhupinder Singh DSP at the spot is doubtful. Atma Singh who was associated by the Investigating Officer on his way was a most convenient witness of the police. He being the stock witness could be introduced at any time. His presence at the spot is doubtful. Recovery of the opium is not proved to the hilt as the presence of Bhupinder Singh DSP at the spot is doubtful. Had he been present there, he must have attested the sample parcel as well as bulk opium parcel but he did not do so. The Investigating Officer did not act upon the orders of the court for depositing the case property in the Judicial Malkhana but in disobedience to that, he kept the case property with him. Seal was not handed over to any independent person. Rather he allegedly handed over the same to ASI Jugraj Singh who has also not been examined by the prosecution. Actually, seal was not handed over to him but it remained with the Investigating Officer because Constable Manjit Singh (PW 3) states that the Investigating Officer had prepared the sample parcel in his presence on the day when it was handed over to him. Therefore, inference which could be drawn is that the sample parcels so prepared cannot be said to be out of the stuff which was already recovered from the accused. It was also urged that link evidence is missing in the case; no official from the Malkhana was examined to prove if the Investigating Officer had deposited the case property in the police Malkhana after effecting the recovery and that thereafter it was deposited in the judicial Malkhana after obtaining the court orders on 15.7.2002. It was also contended that there is delay in sending the sample for chemical examination and report of Chemical Examiner is also defective. 10. To the contrary, Shri Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has vehemently contended that the case of the prosecution is proved to the hilt and it stands established beyond reasonable doubt. While admitting that the case property remained with Investigating Officer before handing over the same to Constable Manjit Singh (PW 3), he urged that he handed over the same parcel to Manjit Singh who took the same, after getting the docket prepared, to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the laboratory officials did not find it to be tampered one, therefore, the accused cannot be said to be prejudiced, in any manner. There was no requirement to examine independent witness in the light of the fact that both Arashdeep Singh as well as Bupinder Singh DSP have fully supported the case. 11. Having heard the rival contentions, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant appear to be having some substance. 12. It is surprising to note that though Inspector Arashdeep Singh had sent for the Gazetted Officer upon which DSP Bhupinder Singh had come present to attest the recovery but he did not affix his seal on the bulk opium as well as on the sample parcel. Presence of DSP becomes doubtful by this serious omission. Had Bhupinder Singh DSP been present at the spot then Inspector Arashdeep Singh must have requested him to affix his seal on the case property in order to lend authenticity to the recovery, particularly, when the search was conducted as per his orders and under his supervision. This material omission committed by the Inspector Arashdeep Singh could loose importance if the independent witness so joined by the prosecution had supported the prosecution case. No difficulty has been explained as to why PW 1 Inspector Arashdeep Singh did not invite DSP Bhupinder Singh to affix his seal on the case property. 13. Presence of DSP Bhupinder Singh, if examined from another angle appears to be doubtful in the case. DSP Bhupinder Singh does not give the number of scooter which the accused was having. (PW 2 Inspector Arashdeep Singh states that he handed over the seal to ASI Jugraj Singh after use. But Manjit Singh (PW 3) has stated that the seal was with the Investigating Officer Arashdeep Singh and he had affixed the said seal on the sample seal chit with the docket). He does not identify the Parna from which the opium was recovered. He has stated that the colour of Parna appears to be faded with the passage of time. But it is most improbable as the Parna was kept in a sealed parcel and was never washed or ever exposed to weather, therefore, fading of the colour of Parna does not arise. He also cannot tell the number of Government Canter, which he had seen, while reaching the spot. He cannot tell the exact number of police officials who were present at the time of recovery. He also cannot tell the number of Government Canter, which he had seen, while reaching the spot. He cannot tell the exact number of police officials who were present at the time of recovery. He does not know about the name of one of the lady constables who was present at the spot. He does not know who had brought the weights and scale and through which conveyance he had brought the said weights and scale. He states that the opium was weighed twice including the sample which is quite impossible. He admits that he did not attest the sample seal chit and the case property. He appears to have not attested all the memos at the spot. The signatures on the memos Ex.PC and Ex.PD are quite at the foot and the ink of his name over Ex.PF and Ex.PG is darker than the ink used in the body material. 14. Link evidence in this case is also missing. According Inspector Arashdeep Singh (PW 2) after recovery the case property on 14.7.2001 he kept the same in his own custody but it is not known as to why he had not kept the case property in the police Malkhana . No MHC of the Malkhana was produced to prove if the Investigating Officer had deposited the case property with him. Consequently, accordingly to him the case property was produced on 15.7.2001 before the Ilaqa Magistrate vide application Ex.PM who directed him to deposit the same in Judicial Malkhana. Obviously, he must have deposited the case property in Judicial Malkhana but no witness has been examined from the Judicial Malkhana to prove if it was deposited in Judicial Malkhana. The whole gambit came to light when Constable Manjeet Singh (PW 3) while appearing in the witness box stated that he had not received the case property through any officer of the Malkhana but the Investigating Officer had handed over him the sample seal and the Investigating Officer had sealed the sample in his presence and he had seen the contents of the sample at that time. He has further specifically stated that sample was not taken out of the Malkhana. He has not explained as to why he kept the seal and the case property with him from the date of recovery till 22.5.2001 when sample seal was handed over to him. He has further specifically stated that sample was not taken out of the Malkhana. He has not explained as to why he kept the seal and the case property with him from the date of recovery till 22.5.2001 when sample seal was handed over to him. It would also be pertinent to mention that the story with regard to the handing over the seal to ASI Jugraj Singh becomes false. Neither ASI Jugraj Singh was examined to prove that he was handed over the seal by SI Arshdeep Singh, nor the Investigating Officer has stated that he had kept the seal with him but constable Manjit Singh (PW 3) states that when these memos are different than the body writing. As such the presence of DSP Bhupinder Singh is doubtful at the spot. 15. The testimony of Constable Manjit Singh (PW 3) is also not above board. He was handed over the sample parcel on 22.7.2001 and he had also got issued the docket on the same day then it is not explained by him as to why he did not go for depositing the same in the office of Chemical Examiner on that very day. This witness has also not stated that during the period of his custody sample remained in tact. Furthermore, the Chemical Examiner in his report Ex.PX has also not disclosed if the seals on the samples were found in tact. The contents of the report were also not put to the accused in his statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code 16. The last but not the least, no independent witness from the locality, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, has been associated. The Investigating Officer has tried to conceal his acquaintance with Atma Singh obviously for the reason that he must be knowing about his conduct but the accused has proved that Atma Singh was most convenient witness to the police. The Investigating Officer has admitted that he had joined his place of posting at Police Station Nehianwala in the month of July, 2001. He has denied if Atma Singh was associated as the witness in cases State v. Kuldeep Singh registered on 12.7.2001, FIR No. 113 dated 13.9.2001 under section 18 of the Act, State v. Raju registered on 12.1.2001. 17. He has denied if Atma Singh was associated as the witness in cases State v. Kuldeep Singh registered on 12.7.2001, FIR No. 113 dated 13.9.2001 under section 18 of the Act, State v. Raju registered on 12.1.2001. 17. In order to prove truthfulness of this defence plea, the accused has placed on record copy of FIR No. 99 dated 12.7.2001 Ex.DB registered against Kuldeep Singh son of Bhola Singh. FIR No. 113 dated 13.9.2001 registered against Lachhman Singh son of Pal Singh. Both FIRs reveal that Atma Singh was cited as a witness though the cases were registered by different Investigating Officers but the Investigating Officer cannot be said to have no knowledge of such persons who are convenient to the police for citing them as witnesses. Therefore, the Investigating Officer should not have associated such witnesses at the time of investigation. 18. The telegrams Ex.DD and Ex.DF and Ex.DE also indicate that the police wanted to nab him in some case. 19. Resultantly, this court reaches the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment has been rendered invalid because of overlooking material evidence by the court, therefore, interference is warranted. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is accepted. Impugned judgment is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him and he is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.