JUDGMENT 1. - Present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioner to assail the order dated 22.1.1998 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots) whereby trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 4/9 Opium Act and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. He has further assailed the order dated 28th April, 2001 whereby learned appellate Court has upheld the judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Petitioner Pankajakshan was nominated as accused in case FIR No.75 dated 06th March, 1985 registered at Police Station, Nayapura Distt. Kota for offence under Section 4/9 Opium Act, 1878. 3. FIR (Ex.P/5) was registered on the basis of Rukka sent by Virendra Kumar Sharma, Inspector, Central Bureau of Narcotics. In the FIR, it was stated by the Inspector, VK Sharma that on 06th March, 1985 at about 8.30 P.M. he along with companion police Officials was present at the bus stand, Bundi at Kota for checking to restrict opium trade. At that time, one person carrying one bag of black colour was seen going towards the booking window. On suspicion, the said person was restrained and he disclosed his name as Pankajakshan. At that time, Prem Kumar son of Mishri Lal and Om Prakash son of Chojja Ji were called as independent witnesses. In their presence, bag was searched. In the bag, opium was found wrapped in a paper. The said opium was weighed and it was found to be 2.900 Kilograms. Out of the above opium, two samples of 30 grams each were prepared. Accused Pankajakshan was arrested under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. After registration of the above said FIR, search memo and arrest memo of the accused were prepared. Samples were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion. Ex. P/8 is the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory whereby 5.89 per cent Morphine was found in the samples so sent to the Laboratory. After investigation in the above said FIR, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Riots Cases, Kota. The Court Charged the petitioner for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After investigation in the above said FIR, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Riots Cases, Kota. The Court Charged the petitioner for the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The Court of the Magistrate held petitioner to be guilty of offence and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and further imposed fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months SI. 5. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner filed an appeal. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No,3 Kota affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded upon the petitioner. 6. The judgments renderered by two courts below were challenged by filing the present revision petition. The revision petition was admitted by this Court on on 23rd May, 2001. 7. Prosecution examined independent witnesses Prem Kumar as PW-1. He had turned hostile and had not supported the prosecution. In examination in chief, he stated that no opium was recovered in his presence. He was called at the Police post and was informed that opium has been recovered from the accused. He further stated that no sample was taken from the contraband in his presence. Another independent witness Om Prakash was examined as PW-2. He stated that in his presence, police had arrested one person, name of said person was not known to him. He further stated that since the occurrence is 5- 6 years old, he cannot identify the person who was arrested by the police. He further stated that some writing work were also done at the spot and his signatures were obtained. In cross-examination he stated that he was called from his house by his neighbour. Neighbour had told him that opium has been recovered and, therefore, he has to go to the police post. He further stated that it is correct that at the time when he reached the spot, opium was already with Assistant Sub-Inspector. He further stated that in his presence, no opium was recovered. 8. Investigating Officer, Virendra Kumar Sharma appeared as PW-3 and reiterated as to what was stated by him in the FIR. In cross-examination, Investigating Officer stated that accused was seen going towards the booking window. He further stated that in his presence, no opium was recovered. 8. Investigating Officer, Virendra Kumar Sharma appeared as PW-3 and reiterated as to what was stated by him in the FIR. In cross-examination, Investigating Officer stated that accused was seen going towards the booking window. He further stated that police post was at the bus stand, as to who was in charge of the bus stand, his name is not known to him. He further stated that it is not known to him that the person apprehended, was coming from which place, and was going towards which destination. He further stated that Badri Meena was accompanying the police Party and Badri Meena is employee of the department. In the cross-examination he further stated that Badri Meena arrived at the spot after recovery was affected. Investigating Officer has further stated that Badri Meena also arrived at the police post after the accused and the contraband was taken to the police post. 9. Shri Arvind Bhardwaj appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is inherent contraction in the prosecution evidence and same cannot be reconciled. It is contended by the counsel that as per the prosecution case, in the present case, recovery was affected in the presence of two independent witnesses namely; PW-1 Prem Kumar and PW-2 Om Prakash. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per PW-2 Om Prakash, Badri Meena had called him from his house to the police post. Counsel submits that it is admitted by PW-3 Virendra Kumar Sharma, Inspector that Badri Meena had arrived at the police post after the recovery was affected. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that assertion of the Om Prakash PW-2 that he reached at the police station upon calling of Badri Meena cannot be reconciled with the evidence of PW-3 Virendra Singh, Inspector. Thus, it is contended that no implicit reliance can be placed upon testimony of the official witnesses as apparently, they are introduced allegedly as independent witnesses after the recovery was affected. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that evidence of the witnesses depict that official respondents have scant regard for truth and, therefore, it is not a case where corroboration of police witnesses is lacking but it is a positive case where independent witnesses have contradicted official witnesses. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that evidence of the witnesses depict that official respondents have scant regard for truth and, therefore, it is not a case where corroboration of police witnesses is lacking but it is a positive case where independent witnesses have contradicted official witnesses. 10. Having perused the evidence, I find merit in the contention raised by Shri Arvind Bhardwaj, counsel for the petitioner. 11. The learned Public Public Prosecutor has not been able to reconcile the evidence of PW-1- Prem Kumar and PW-2 Om Prakash with the admission made by PW-3 Virendra Singh, Investigating Officer. 12. Inspector, PW-3 Virendra Kumar Sharma has admitted in cross-examination that Badri Meena was employee of the Department (Excise). Badri Meena appearing as PW-8 has not specifically named independent witnesses. However, he has stated that recovery was effected in his presence whereas PW-3 Virendra Kumar Sharma in cross-examination stated that Badri Meena reached police post after recovery was effected. Om Prakash PW-2 in cross-examination stated that he was called from his house by Badri Meena. Statement of Badri Meena, PW-8, PW-3 Investigating Officer Virendra Kumar Sharma and PW-2 Om Prakash, make recovery of contraband doubtful. 13. This important aspect has not been noticed by two courts below. There is misreading of the evidence on the part of the two Courts below, 14. This Court is of the view that it is not safe to uphold the conviction of the petitioner. 15. Consequently, while giving benefit of doubt, present revision petition is accepted and conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted from the charges.Revision Allowed. *******