The possibility of tampering with evidence and doubt cast on the prosecution's case due to delays, lack of independent witnesses, and discrepancies in the evidence.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.7.1998, and the order of sentence dated 16.7.1998, rendered by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Kurukshetra, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Daljit Singh, 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 2 years.

2. The facts, in brief are that on 26.6.1996, Ram Kumar, SI, of Police Station Pehowa, alongwith other police officials, was present near Bus Stand Pehowa, when the accused was seen coming, having a bag, in his hand. He was apprehended. Search of the bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted, in accordance with the provisions of law, in the presence of Naib Tehsildar, which resulted into the recovery of 9 Kgs. poppy-husk. A sample of 250 grams was separated therefrom. The sample and the remaining poppy-husk, were converted into parcels, duly sealed, with the seals, bearing impression `RK and `PC. Thereafter, the same were taken into possession. The seal belonging to the Sub Inspector, was handed over to Hukam Singh, HC, and the Naib Tehsildar, kept his, with him. The accused was arrested. The statements of the witnesses, were recorded. 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 Prem Chand, Naib Tehsildar, Pehowa, (PW-1), Hukam Singh, HC, (PW-2), Ram Kumar, SI, (PW-3), Mam Chand, SI, (PW-4), Dharamvir, Constable (PW-5), Bajinder Kumar, HC (PW-6), and Ram Chander, ASI (PW-7). Thereafter, the 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 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, as stated hereinbefore.

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. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, despite due notice, that the appeal was fixed for regular hearing, on the board of this Bench.

9. I have heard Mr. A.K. Jindal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10. The alleged recovery, in this case, was effected on 26.6.1996, whereas, the sample was sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory on 4.7.1996. There was delay of 8 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Even, the seal used by Naib Tehsildar, was kept by him, whereas, the seal used by Ram Kumar, SI, was handed over to a junior official, in the name of Hukam Singh, HC. No explanation, whatsoever, has been furnished, by the prosecution witnesses, with regard to the, delay of 8 days, in sending the sample to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is the duty of the prosecution, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that none tampered with the sample, till the same reached the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Since, the sample was allegedly sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory, after about 8 days, it could not be safely held, that the same remained un-tampered with. This fact ca