Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.1.2003, passed by the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur vide which, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act'). The facts necessary for adjudication of the matter as narrated in para. Nos. 2 & 3 of the impugned judgment are as under: On 4.3.2001, SI/SHO Gurdev Singh alongwith ASI Om Parkash, HC Mehma Singh, HC Paramjit Singh, CI Babu Singh, CI Jhirmal Singh, Constable Balbir Singh, Constable Paramjit Ram, PUG Gurmail Singh, PIIG Malkiat Singh were out on patrolling duty on a Government Vehicle Allywn Nissan bearing registration No. PB-13-B-1601, driven by Constable Nirmal Singh No. 1278. According to the prosecution version, when the "police party was in the area of village Kamirpur and were on the road going from Rampur Gujjaran towards Kudni, SI heading the police party called a person working in the fields and inquired about his, name and address. This person has given his name as Mangat Singh Panch son of Bachan Singh, caste Rai, resident of Rampur Gujjaran. When the SHO was about to commence conversation with this witness, he saw three young men coming on foot from the side of village Kudni and each of them were carrying bags on their shoulders. On seeing the Govt. vehicle and the police these accused persons tried to back track but they were apprehended with the assistance of police officials accompanying the SHO. Out of the arrested persons, first narrated his name as Rajinder alias Raju son of Rameshwar caste Baragi, resident of village Haniherra Police station and District Barah. The second man narrated his name as Din Dayala s/o Ram Parkash caste Nagar Dagar and third person has revealed his name as Nand Lal son of Madan Lal, caste Nagar Dagar, residents of Kohni, Police Station Kavai, District Barah, Rajasthan. The second man narrated his name as Din Dayala s/o Ram Parkash caste Nagar Dagar and third person has revealed his name as Nand Lal son of Madan Lal, caste Nagar Dagar, residents of Kohni, Police Station Kavai, District Barah, Rajasthan. SHO has separately told these three persons about his identity by stating that his name is Gurdev Singh and he is posted as SHO at Police Station, Moonak and he want to carry on search of the bags being carried by each of them and if they so desire, their search can be conducted in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, because they are suspected to be carrying some contraband in the bags. All the accused persons told the SHO that they want to get search of their bags conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and SHO recorded separate consent memos of each of the three persons and all the three persons signed on this consent memo, which was attested by independent witness Mangat Singh, Panch resident of Rampura Gujjaran and ASI Om Parkash. Thereafter, SHO has informed DSP, Moonam on the wireless fitted on the vehicle Allwyen to come to the spot. In the meantime, two more persons came from the side of village Rampur Gujjaran and they narrated their names as Chhota Singh Sarpanch son of Bakhtaur Singh, Caste Kamboj and second person told his name as Baldev Singh Namberdar, son of Deva Singh, Caste Kamobj residents of Kudni. It was 3'O clock when DSP Inder Mohan Singh reached the place of occurrence and SHO narrated the entire sequence of events to the DSP. DSP thereafter identified himself to the accused persons and told them that bags being carried by them are to be searched by these three persons. DSP further told these persons that if they desire, then their search can be conducted in the presence of a Magistrate. On this, all the three young men reposed confidence in the DSP and asked him to carry out the search of the bags. DSP thereafter recorded three separate consent statements of these persons, which were attested by Head Constable Gulshan Singh, Chhota Singh Sarpanch of village Kudni and by the SHO. All the three accused persons also signed on their respective consent statements. DSP thereafter recorded three separate consent statements of these persons, which were attested by Head Constable Gulshan Singh, Chhota Singh Sarpanch of village Kudni and by the SHO. All the three accused persons also signed on their respective consent statements. Thereafter DSP first got the bag carried by accused Rajinder alias Raju removed from his shoulder and carried out its search and the bag was found to contain opium wrapped in a glazed paper. Thereafter, bag of accused Din Dayal was got removed from his shoulder and upon its search, opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered. Thereafter, DSP got the bag carried by accused Nand Lal on his shoulder removed and upon its search it was found to contain opium wrapped in a glazed paper. Thereafter, DSP directed ASI Om Parkash to conduct proceedings in respect of the opium recovered from the bag of accused Nand Lal. He further directed SHO Gurdev Singh to conduct proceedings in respect of the opium recovered from the bag of accused Din Dayal and DSP himself conducted proceedings in respect of the opium recovered from the bag of accused Rajinder alias Raju. 3. Investigating Officer, SHO Gurdev Singh separated two samples of 20 grams each from the recovered opium and put the same into two tin Dabbis and converted the same into two separate parcels. Upon being weighed, the remaining opium came to be 2 kilo 960 grams, which was also put into a tin Dabba and converted into a separate parcel. All the three parcels were sealed by the Investigating Officer SHO Gurdev Singh with his own seal bearing impression 'GS'. Thereafter, DSP Inder Mohan Singh further sealed the case property with his own seal bearing impression 'JMS'. Sample seal chit Ex. P-1 was separately prepared and seal after use was handed over by the Investigating Officer to PW Baldev Singh Namberdar. The entire case property was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer, vide recovery memo Ex.PE, which was attested by Baldev Singh Namberdar and HC Mehma Singh. From the personal search of the accused currency notes of Rs.165/- were recovered which were also taken into possession vide memo of personal search Ex. P-F, which was signed by the accused and attested by HC Mehma Singh and Baldev Singh Namberdar. Ruqa Ex. From the personal search of the accused currency notes of Rs.165/- were recovered which were also taken into possession vide memo of personal search Ex. P-F, which was signed by the accused and attested by HC Mehma Singh and Baldev Singh Namberdar. Ruqa Ex. PH was sent to the police station through C. Jhirmal Singh, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PH/1 was recorded by MHC Nirmal Singh. Thereafter, Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex. PJ and recorded the statement of the witnesses. Accused was arrested and memo of arrest Ex. PK was also prepared, which was signed by accused and attested by aforesaid PWs. On return to the police station, Investigating Officer deposited the case property with MHC Nirmal Singh and lodged accused in the lockup. On 5.3.2001 MHC Nirmal Singh handed over the accused and all the three parcels to Head Constable Mehma Singh for producing the same before the Illaga magistrate. Head Constable Mehma Singh produced the accused and case property before Sh. Harbans Singh Lekhi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sunam, who after checking the case property, put his seal and signatures on the case property and handed over the same to Head Constable mehma Singh, who in turn deposited the same with MHC Nirmal Singh, after reaching the police Station. 2. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. The accused were charged under Section 18 of the Act, to which, he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: PW 1, Rimpi Bansal, Additional Ahlmad at Sunam, who identified the signatures of JMIC, Simam on the order dated 5.3.2001 Ex. PA. PW 2, Constable Mukhtiar Singh deposited the sample parcels of the case to the office of Chemical Examiner. PW 3, HC Nirmal Singh tendered his affidavit Ex. PC in evidence. He received the case property and produced the same before the Illaqa Magistrate on the next date. PW 4, DSP Inder Mohan Singh, in whose presence the search of the accused was conducted. He put his seal on the parcels. PW 5, SI Gurdev Singh, Investigating Officer. He proved the recovery memo Ex. PE. 4. PC in evidence. He received the case property and produced the same before the Illaqa Magistrate on the next date. PW 4, DSP Inder Mohan Singh, in whose presence the search of the accused was conducted. He put his seal on the parcels. PW 5, SI Gurdev Singh, Investigating Officer. He proved the recovery memo Ex. PE. 4. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded false implication. In defence, he examined C. Chand Singh as DW 1 and Mangat Singh as DW 2, and closed the evidence. 5. The learned trial Court by observing that prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant was in possession of opium, which is fully established from the statement of the PWs, and therefore, the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as noticed at the outset. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the accused-appellant preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error while convicting and sentencing the appellant. There are material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The independent witnesses Mangat Singh, Chhota Singh Sarpanch and Baldev Singh were not examined. As per the statement of PW 5 SI Gurdev Singh, the seal was handed over to Baldev Singh, independent witnesses, who was never examined by the prosecution. He further submits that the case property produced before the Court was some of other case, therefore, it also creates a doubt in the prosecution story. The sample parcels were sent to the Chemical Examiner on 12.3.2001, whereas the recovery was effected on 4.3.2001, therefore, there was every possibility of tampering with the sample and the case property. 8. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the prosecution case is fully established and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 10. In his cross-examination, PW 4 DSP Inder Mohan Singh has deposed as under:- No chit was pasted on the bag Ex. P4 on the spot. Particulars of the case on parcel Ex. P3 are not decipherable due to leakage. One seal on Ex. P-3 is somewhat cracked, but its impression is decipherable. 10. In his cross-examination, PW 4 DSP Inder Mohan Singh has deposed as under:- No chit was pasted on the bag Ex. P4 on the spot. Particulars of the case on parcel Ex. P3 are not decipherable due to leakage. One seal on Ex. P-3 is somewhat cracked, but its impression is decipherable. My statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O., but I do not remember the time. I have not mentioned in my statement that seal after use was handed over to Chhota Singh Sarpanch. Chhota Singh returned seal to me next day in my office. 11. In his cross-examination, SI Gurdev Singh, Investigating Officer, has deposed that "the bag was not sealed. It is correct that sample parcel Ex. P2 and the parcel containing remaining opium Ex. P3, there is no mention of the seal of DSP Inder Mohan Singh". It is further deposed that "Baldev Singh Namberdar returned seal to me after 2-3 days. The writing work in the present case was completed at 11 P.M". It also has come in evidence that the copy of memo of arrest was not supplied to the accused, at the time of departure from the police station, entry regarding patrolling was made, but he did not remember if the names of the villages were mentioned in the departure entry. From the meticulous perusal of the statement made by DSP Inder Mohan Singh, it is proved that the seal was not paste on the bag Ex. P4 at the spot and the particulars of the case on Ex. P3 are not decipherable on account of leakage, it creates a suspicion about the recovery of the contraband. The seal after use was handed over to the independent witnesses, which was re-turned to the officials after 2-3 days of the recovery. The most glaring fact is that as per the statement of Constable Mukhtiar Singh the samples were deposited with the office of Chemical Examiner on 12.3.2001, whereas the recovery was effected on 4.3.2001. The sample parcels were not sent to the analyst for about eight days. In view of the cumulative circumstances, the recovery of the contraband has become doubtful in this case. 12. One Mangat Singh, who was also joined as an independent witness, was also not examined. Admittedly, they have been kept off the witness box. 13. The sample parcels were not sent to the analyst for about eight days. In view of the cumulative circumstances, the recovery of the contraband has become doubtful in this case. 12. One Mangat Singh, who was also joined as an independent witness, was also not examined. Admittedly, they have been kept off the witness box. 13. In re: State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.), 266, the Division Bench of this Court held that when the prosecution alleged that a material witness has been won over by the accused, it is still necessary that such witness must be examined to reveal the truth. 14. In the present case, the recovery was effected on 4.3.2001, whereas, the sample parcels were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 12.3.2001. The said delay has not been explained by the prosecution. The seals remained with the police officials, therefore the possibility of tampering with the samples and the case property cannot be ruled out. 15. In re: Bantapalli Durga Rao and others v. State of A.P., 2005 (4) RCR (Cri.) 404, the delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis was not explained. The conviction was set aside. In view of the forgoing discussion, this appeal succeeds and is accepted by setting aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence. The appellant is hereby acquitted of the charged offence. His bail bonds shall also stand discharged. Appeal allowed.