The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with statutory provisions governing search and seizure, including the need for joining independent witnesses, timely submission of samples to the Chemical Examiner, and maintaining complete link evidence to ensure the integrity of the prosecution's case.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 25.8.1995, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant, for the offence, punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as the Act only) and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months, for having been found in possession of 50 Kgs, poppy-husk, without any permit or licence.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 11.7.1992, at about 6.00 P.M., Shiv Shambu Nath, SI/SHO, alongwith other police official, was on patrol duty, in Government Jeep, driven by Surjit Singh, Constable, and when the police party after patrolling Village Daulewala, was going towards Village Rajpura, accused Kashmir Singh, was seen coming on a cycle. On seeing the police party, he tried to slip away, but was apprehended, on suspicion. The accused was carrying a gunny bag, on the carrier of his cycle. The search of the bag, in accordance with the provisions of law, was conducted, as a result whereof, 50 Kgs. poppy-husk, was recovered therefrom. A sample of 100 grams, was taken out, and the remaining poppy-husk, was put into the same bag. The sample, and the bag, containing the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, formal FIR was registered. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned.

3. On appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. Charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Des Raj, ASI (PW-1), Shiv Shambhu Nath, SI (PW-2), and Santokh Singh, Constable (PW-3). Thereafter, the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.

5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in his defence.

6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as stated herein before.

7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that the alleged recovery was effected from the accused, from an open place, but no independent witness was joined, at the time of search and seizure. He further submitted that even no effort was made, to join and independent witness. He further submitted that the Constable, who was sent to bring weights and scale was also not asked to bring an independent witness. He further submitted that on account of this reason, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, appears to be correct. Shiv Shambhu Nath, SI (PW-1), the Investigating Officer, during the course of his cross-examination stated, that efforts were made to join a public witness, but none was available. He, however, admitted that the recovery was effected from a thoroughfare. Had an effort been made to join an independent witness, when the alleged recovery was effected, from a thoroughfare, and had no-body been