The prosecution's version must inspire truthfulness, and the lack of credibility can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

A. S. Garg, J.

1. On 13.1.1994, a police party headed by SI Badri Parshad consisting of ASI Balwan Singh and other members of the Police Force held a nakabandi near canal bridge in the area of Police Station, Ratia. on 13.1.1994. Around 3.00 A. M. , they allegedly noticed a Four wheeler bearing No. HR-16-7316 being driven by Ranbir Singh accused and by the side of drivers seat Jai Singh was sitting. On seeing the police party Jai Singh escaped from the scene leaving the driver behind. The police party captured 10 bags each containing 40 Kgs. of poppy husk.100 gins, was taken out as sample from each bag. The police had asked the driver if he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. The search was vouchsafed by DSP Mange Rain. The recovery memo Ex. PB was prepared. The seal was put on the sample. The Investigating Officer sent ruqa Ex. PE to the Police Station for registration of a case and on its basis formal FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded. The sample and the remaining poppy husk were deposited with the MHC. While the police was holding the nakabandi they were allegedly having a private jeep being driven by Vakil Chand. Vide report Ex. PK, the Chemical Examiner opined that the contents of the sample were poppy husk. The other accused Jai Singh was arrested on 21.2.1994 from his village on Vakil Chand telling that the person escaped was Jai Singh. As the police claimed that he was already known to them and, therefore, there was no dispute with regard to identity of the person who escaped from the Four wheeler.

2. So, it was in these circumstances that two persons were prosecuted and tried under Sec.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The learned trial Judge convicted both the appellants under Sec.15 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 . In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.

3. Both the appellants have obviously come up in appeal which is being resisted by the State.

4. As far as the search of the vehicle in question and compliance of provisions of Sections 50 and 55 of the Act are concerned, it has been held by the Apex Court in State of Punjab V/s. Baldev Singh, 1999 (3) RCR (Crl.) 533 (SC) : JT 1999 (4) SC 595 that when the search is not made from the actual person of the offender and is from the vehicle it was not required to be conducted under the supervision of a Gazetted Officer.

5. However, the main factor in every criminal case remains to be that the story of the prosecution must be inspiring truthfulness in the testimony of the witnesses relied upon. In the case in hand. Vakil Chand, the driver of the private jeep in which the police party was patrolling did not come into the witness box. The police did not record any sufficient statements to prove their own presence on the scene where the accused were allegedly captured. The Investigating Officer SI Badri Parshad PW2 did not make any effort to find out the source of the poppy husk where from it was received and its destination. No house search of any of the appellant was effected. The police party would have been visible to the Four wheeler driver and there was no possibility that they would have tried to come near the place if the police parly had been standing there. One of the accused-appellants allegedly escaped from the scene of occurrence. In the given circumstances it would be impossible for one person to run away in the face of duly armed police officials being present. The police had allegedly a jeep with them and the police personnel on the spot must be physically fit to perform their function efficiently and they could have easily chased the offender but they did not do so. This reflects a clear manipulation of the story on the part of the Investigating Officer. The police party did not join any independent person, in fact the