Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, in Sessions Case No. 1/06, whereby accused Sushil Kumar, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake convenience), was acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 23.4.2006, during day time, PW11 Harbans Lal, ASI/I.O. Police Station Una, was present at Hospital Chowk along with other police officials. He received an information from PW1 LHC Sandeep Kumar that accused was selling opium to the customers near shops at Ajnoli in front of Railway crossing. On this information, PW11 ASI Harbans Lal formed a raiding party and visited the spot. The accused was informed of his right to be searched either before Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer or the police. After obtaining consent of the accused, his search was conducted by the police officials in the presence of the witnesses. On search of the accused, one plastic envelope containing 500 grams opium was recovered from the right pocket of his trousers. Currency notes of Rs.700/-were also recovered from the accused. The opium and currency notes were taken into possession. Two samples of 20 grams each were taken out of the opium recovered. Samples and bulk were sealed separately. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. He also examined one witness in his defence. Learned trial court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 27.2.2007. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 6. PW1, LHC Sandeep Kumar, deposed that he was working as LHC in Police Station, Una since 2004. On 23.4.2006, at about 11.00 A.M., he was deputed by ASI Harbans Lal for patrolling and detection of contraband etc. in the area. 5. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 6. PW1, LHC Sandeep Kumar, deposed that he was working as LHC in Police Station, Una since 2004. On 23.4.2006, at about 11.00 A.M., he was deputed by ASI Harbans Lal for patrolling and detection of contraband etc. in the area. At about 2.15 P.M., when he was present in Kotla Kalan Bazaar, he got secret information that accused Sushil Kumar was dealing with opium illegally. He was informed by informant that Sushil Kumar was wearing red T-shirt and orange colour trouser near railway crossing near shops at Ajnoli and selling opium to the people. He gave the information to ASI Harbans Lal, who met him near Civil Hospital, Una. His statement was recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Ext.PW1/A by ASI Harbans Lal. Thereafter, ASI Harbans Lal prepared a report and sent the same to Superintendent of Police Una through HHC Karnail Singh. He went to Ajnoli along with ASI Harbans Lal and other police officials. On the way, ASI Harbans Lal associated two witnesses, namely Devi Dass and Gurcharan Singh from village Kotla Kalan. The accused was present on the spot. In cross-examination, he deposed that he remained at the spot for about 4-5 hours. He did not know who was driver of the vehicle. He had gone for patrolling on foot and had also come back from spot on foot. He admitted that there were about 100-200 shops and houses in between Kotla and Ajnoli. He also admitted that the road was very busy. He admitted that before 23.4.2006, he had never seen accused. 7. PW2, HHC Karnail Singh, deposed that he was posted in Police Station as General Duty Constable since 2004. On 23.4.2006, at about 11.40 A.M., he had gone with ASI Harbans Lal, HC Madan Mohan, Constable Sanjog Raj, Constable Chanan Singh, Constable Raj Bahadur and L.C. Ramna Devi for patrolling in a private vehicle. At about 2.20 P.M., when they were near hospital, LHC Sandeep Kumar came on foot and gave information to ASI Harbans Lal. Harbans Lal prepared a report in writing under Section 42(2) of the Act and handed over the same to him. At about 2.20 P.M., when they were near hospital, LHC Sandeep Kumar came on foot and gave information to ASI Harbans Lal. Harbans Lal prepared a report in writing under Section 42(2) of the Act and handed over the same to him. He handed over the report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Una at 2.50 P.M., because at that time Superintendent of Police Una and Additional Superintendent of Police Una were not present in the headquarters. 8. PW3, Constable Raj Bahadur, deposed that on 23.4.2006, at about 11.40 A.M., he along with ASI Harbans Lal, HC Madan Mohan, Constable Sanjog Raj, HHC Karnail Singh, Constable Chanan Singh and Lady Constable Ramna Devi had gone towards Ajnoli in a private vehicle. When they were present at Hospital Chowk, LHC Sandeep Kumar met them. His statement was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. 9. PW4, Gurcharan Singh, was an independent witness, who was associated by the police. According to him, he owned spice grinding machine at Kotla Kalan. On 23.4.2006, he had come to Railway crossing from his shop to purchase “Bidi”. He was called by the police. Devi Dass was also with him at that time. The police officials caught the accused. They asked the accused whether he wanted to be searched by the police or any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused told that he wanted to be searched by the police officials. Consent memo Ext.PW4/A was prepared to this effect, which was signed by him as well as Devi Dass. The accused also signed the memo in his presence. Thereafter, the accused searched the police officials vide memo Ext.PW4/B. The police conducted search of the accused. On search, Rs.700/- were recovered from the left pocket of his trouser and from his right pocket, a polythene envelope was recovered. It was found containing opium. Opium weighed 500 grams. Thereafter, two samples of 20 grams each were taken out from the envelope. The sample and the bulk were sealed in separate packets with seal impression ‘N’. The seal was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, he deposed that his house was situated at village Kotla Kalan on road side. He admitted that on 23.4.2006 at about 2.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M., he was present in his house at village Kotla Kalan. He had gone to the spot on foot. The seal was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, he deposed that his house was situated at village Kotla Kalan on road side. He admitted that on 23.4.2006 at about 2.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M., he was present in his house at village Kotla Kalan. He had gone to the spot on foot. A number of shops were situated near the spot. The police had conducted the entire investigation including search of the accused at Village Kotla Kalan. He admitted that Devi Dass was his friend and he belonged to his caste. He admitted that the accused and his father were his tenants. He admitted that he had filed a petition for recovery of rent against father of the accused. According to him, the same was filed by him after the incident in question. He admitted that he had filed many complaints against the father of the accused before the Police as well as Panchayat. He also admitted that a case between him and father of the accused was pending before the Panchayat. The entire proceedings conducted by the police while sitting in a tea shop at Ajnoli. Proceedings continued for 5-10 minutes after dark and thereafter, all of them left since the proceedings came to an end. 10. PW5 Sukh Dev Singh, deposed that on 23.4.2006, ASI Harbans Lal deposited case property with him with seal impressions ‘N’ and ‘T’. He handed over one sample to HHC Anand Sidhu for being deposited at CTL Kandaghat vide R.C. No.68/06 dated 26.4.2006. 11. PW6, HHC Anand Sidhu testified that on 26.4.2006, MHC Sukh Dev handed over one packet sealed with seal ‘N’ and ‘T’ along with two seal samples and on NCB form for the purpose of depositing the same at CTL Kandaghat vide R.C. No.68/06. He deposited the same at CTL Kandaghat in proper condition. 12. PW10, Inspector Ajay Rana, deposed that he was posted as SHO, Police Station Una since February 2006. On 23.4.2006, at about 7.35 P.M., accused Sushil Kumar was produced before him by ASI Harbans Lal along with four parcels, two containing 20 grams opium each as sample, one parcel containing 460 grams opium and one parcel containing currency notes of Rs.700/- duly sealed with seal impression ‘N’. On 23.4.2006, at about 7.35 P.M., accused Sushil Kumar was produced before him by ASI Harbans Lal along with four parcels, two containing 20 grams opium each as sample, one parcel containing 460 grams opium and one parcel containing currency notes of Rs.700/- duly sealed with seal impression ‘N’. He resealed all four parcels with seal ‘T’ and filled in NCB form and deposited the same with MHC, Police Station Una along with sample seal. In cross-examination, he admitted that he used seal ‘T’ while re-sealing the case property. 13. PW11, ASI Harbans Lal, deposed that on 23.4.2006, he along with HC Madan Mohan, HHC Karnail Singh, Constable Sanjog Raj, Constable Raj Bahadur and Lady Constable Ramana Devi was on patrolling duty near Hospital on Una-Hamirpur Road, where LHC Sandeep Kumar, who was deputed by him for detection of contraband in the area, met him and gave an information that Sushil Kumar was selling opium near Ajnoli shop and was wearing red T-shirt and orange colour trouser. He prepared information report under Section 42(1) of the Act vide Ext.PW2/A and handed over the same to HHC Karnail Singh for handing over the same to the Superintendent of Police Una. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Sandeep Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C. vide Ext.PW1/A. He associated two independent witnesses Devi Dass and Gurcharan Singh and proceeded towards the spot. Accused was informed that his personal search was to be conducted as he was selling contraband as per the information received. He was also informed about his legal right whether he wanted to be searched before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or the police officials. He gave his consent to be searched by the police vide memo Ext.PW4/A. Personal search of the accused was conducted on the spot. The contraband was recovered. The opium weighed 500 grams. Two samples of 20 grams each were taken out from the bulk opium. The bulk as well as samples were sealed with seal ‘N’ and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext.PW4/C. He also prepared the site plan, Ext.PW11/C. NCB form Ext.PW10/A from columns No. 1 to 8 was filled in by him on the spot. In cross-examination, he deposed that he received the information at about 2.20 P.M. and sent information at 2.30 P.M. and Ruqua at 2.45 P.M. from the spot. He associated Devi Ram and Gurcharan Singh. In cross-examination, he deposed that he received the information at about 2.20 P.M. and sent information at 2.30 P.M. and Ruqua at 2.45 P.M. from the spot. He associated Devi Ram and Gurcharan Singh. One more person was also asked, but he refused to assist. According to him, there were 10-15 shops nearby the spot. He did not contact any Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of the area. He did not know that accused was tenant of Gurcharan Singh. It came to his knowledge during course of investigation when the accused was arrested on 23.4.2006. He did not know whether there was litigation pending between the accused or his father and Gurcharan Singh regarding tenancy. He did not associate any shopkeeper because the independent witnesses were already with him. 14. PW12, HC Madan Mohan, deposed that on 23.4.2006 at about 2.20 P.M., LHC Sandeep Kumar made statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. before ASI Harbans Lal. Thereafter, information under Section 42 of the Act was prepared by ASI Harbans Lal and the same was sent to Superintendent of Police, Una through HHC Karnail Singh. According to him, he along with police officials and independent witnesses went to Ajnoli Bazaar. Accused Sushil Kumar met them near the shops. He was found selling opium. Accused was informed by ASI Harbans Lal that his personal search was to be conducted as he was selling opium. He also informed about his legal right whether he wanted his personal search to be conducted before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or the police. He gave consent to be searched by the police officials vide memo Ext.PW4/A. Opium was recovered from his possession. It weighed 500 grams. Sampling and sealing process was completed in accordance with law. In cross-examination, he admitted that there were shops on the spot by the side of the road. It was a busy road. He admitted that they sat inside a tea stall. 15. It has come on record that there were a number of shops and houses situated at the spot. However, despite that the prosecution associated PW4 Gurcharan Singh and his friend Devi Dass as independent witnesses. PW4, Gurcharan Singh categorically admitted in his cross-examination that Devi Dass was his friend and belonged to his caste. He also admitted that after the incident dated 23.4.2006, he filed a case against father of the accused for recovery of rent. However, despite that the prosecution associated PW4 Gurcharan Singh and his friend Devi Dass as independent witnesses. PW4, Gurcharan Singh categorically admitted in his cross-examination that Devi Dass was his friend and belonged to his caste. He also admitted that after the incident dated 23.4.2006, he filed a case against father of the accused for recovery of rent. He also admitted that he had filed many complaints against the father of the accused before the police and Panchayats. PW4 Gurcharan Singh cannot be termed to be an independent witness due to his animosity with family of the accused. The other independent witness, Devi Singh, who was friend of PW4 Gurcharan Singh was not examined by the prosecution. Moreover, according to PW4 Gurcharan Singh, search of the accused was conducted at village Kotla Kalan. However, as per PW1 LHC Sandeep Kumar, it took place at Ajnoli. It creates a doubt on the entire story of the prosecution. 16. PW10 SHO Ajay Rana deposed that on 23.4.2006 at about 7.35 P.M., accused Sushil Kumar was produced before him by ASI Harbans Lal along with four parcels, two containing 20 grams opium each as sample, one parcel containing 460 grams opium and one parcel containing currency notes of Rs.700/- duly sealed with seal impression ‘N’, three impressions each on the parcels. He resealed all four parcels with seal ‘T’ and filled-in NCB form and deposited the same with MHC, Police Station, Una along with sample seal. However, PW5 Sukh Dev Singh testified that one sealed parcel having bulk of opium sealed with seal ‘N’ and ‘T’ and two other packets having samples of opium sealed with seals ‘N’ and ‘T’, NCB form and one other packet having currency notes of Rs.700/- sealed with seals ‘N’ and ‘T’ were deposited with him. He handed over one sample to HHC Anand Sindhu for the purpose of sending the same to CTL Kandaghat vide R.C. No.68/06 dated 26.4.2006. According to PW10 Ajay Rana, he had received the parcels with seal impression ‘N’. Thereafter, he resealed parcels with seal impression ‘T’ and filled in NCB form and deposited the same with MHC, Police Station Una along with sample seal. However, according to PW5 HC Sukh Dev Singh, he had received the parcels with seal impressions ‘N’ and ‘T’. According to PW10 Ajay Rana, he had received the parcels with seal impression ‘N’. Thereafter, he resealed parcels with seal impression ‘T’ and filled in NCB form and deposited the same with MHC, Police Station Una along with sample seal. However, according to PW5 HC Sukh Dev Singh, he had received the parcels with seal impressions ‘N’ and ‘T’. Once PW10 Ajay Rana resealed the samples with seal impression ‘T’, it could not be present on the parcels at the time of deposit with PW5 HC Sukh Dev Singh. 17. The contraband was recovered on 23.4.2006. Sample was received by the Chemical Examiner on 26.4.2006. However, it was analyzed by him on 30.10.2006 after a period of about six months. The Chemical Examiner report was filed by the prosecution in the court on 22.11.2006. The entire evidence of the prosecution was already recorded, except PW12 HC Madan Mohan, when the chemical examiner report, Ext.PX was received. It has definitely prejudiced the case of the accused. 18. Presence of PW12 HC Madan Mohan was also doubtful on the spot. Perusal of documents, Ext.PW4/A, Ext.PW4/B, Ext.PW4/C, Ext.PW4/D and Ext.PW11/B show that signatures of PW12 HC Madan Mohan on these documents were obtained only at the space which was left between the statements of PW4 Gurcharan Singh, Devi Dass and the accused. In case he was present on the spot, his name and address should have been recorded the manner in which the names and addresses of other witnesses were recorded. 19. The learned trial court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. There is no illegality or perversity in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the learned trial court. 20. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.