ORDER : Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Even on second call, none appears on behalf of the appellant-State of Punjab. Even otherwise, we deem it appropriate to take up this appeal and dispose of the same on merits. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that: (i) on 24.08.1997, one Bahadur Singh (ASI) along with other police officials was on patrol duty, they found the accused-respondent herein coming from the side of village Kheri Gillan on bicycle. The said accused was carrying one bag on the carrier of the bicycle and another was placed in the middle of its frame. (ii) The police party apprehended the accused on the basis of suspicion and gave an option to him for search of bags either in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, he opted for search to be made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, a wireless message was sent to the DSP who came to the spot and disclosed his identity and, subsequently, search conducted in his presence and the bags were found containing poppy husk. Out of each bag, two samples of 250 grams each of poppy husk were drawn and the remaining poppy husk in each bag came to be 33-1/2 kgs. (iii) The samples as well as both the bags were converted into parcels and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'BS' and the case property was taken over by the police in their possession and, thereafter, ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR was registered against the said accused. The samples were sent to the laboratory for analysis. (iv) After the investigation was concluded, challan was presented against the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Sangrur. Subsequently, the matter was entrusted to the Special Court, Sangrur. Charges were framed against the accused and trial started. (v) The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and after closure of evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C wherein, the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. (vi) The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence as well as statement of the accused, convicted the accused under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs. (vi) The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence as well as statement of the accused, convicted the accused under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo RI for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh vide judgment dated 04.02.2003. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the High Court by the accused on the ground that no independent witness was present at the time of alleged recovery and further seals were not found intact condition and were found to be broken which was duly admitted by SI Bahadur Singh (PW-4). In fact, he has admitted that seals were broken and impressions of the same were not legible. No special report was sent to the senior officers and it was submitted that mandatory provisions of the Act were not followed. 4. The High Court, after considering the evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution as well as the accused came to the conclusion that it is admitted by SI Bahadur Singh (PW-4) that no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery whereas place of recovery was a kutcha path and it was thoroughfare. It is further stated that although number of persons met them on the way but none of them was called to be a witness for the recovery. It is also admitted by PW-4 that seal was handed over to him by DSP and the same was reported by DSP on that very day and he left the spot at 1.30 p.m. PW-4 further admitted that he did not produce the case property before SHO and no statement was recorded. 5. The facts which were considered by the High Court further reveal that the seals were also broken and impressions of the same were not legible. Further, no special report was sent and the High Court also noted that no copy of ground of arrest was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 57 of Act. Further, no explanation was also furnished by the I.O. as to why the provisions of Section 57 of the Act were not complied with. 6. Further, no special report was sent and the High Court also noted that no copy of ground of arrest was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 57 of Act. Further, no explanation was also furnished by the I.O. as to why the provisions of Section 57 of the Act were not complied with. 6. In these circumstances, the High Court held that it is not acceptable that where the place of occurrence was a public place and a thoroughfare still no efforts were made by the prosecution to find out an independent witness. Furthermore, the seal was found to be tampered without any investigation from the I.O. In view of that, the High Court held that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act and on that ground the High Court acquitted the accused of such charge. The High Court further held that no efforts were taken by the officer concerned following the provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Act. 7. In these circumstances, the High Court set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court on the ground that the prosecution case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused must get the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. 8. In our opinion, after appraising the evidence in the matter and the facts as well as the reasoning given by the High Court, we do not have any hesitation to accept such reasoning of the High Court in coming to the conclusion as has been done by the High Court and thereby in our opinion, it cannot be said that the High Court was wrong in coming to such conclusion. 9. Accordingly, we do not find that there is any merit in the appeal and the appeal stands dismissed.