The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair investigation, compliance with legal provisions, and the need to prove the integrity of case property and the chain of custody of contraband articles.

A.S.Garg, J.

1. The respondent/accused Ram Chand was stopped by Shri Gurdev Singh ASI (PW-1) within the area of Police Station Abohar on 19.12.1985, while heading the police party comprising of HC Gurmit Singh (PW-2) and other police officials. On suspicion, the person of the accused was searched and he was found to be carrying a bag (Jhola), which contained two kilograms of opium. 10 gms of opium was separated as sample. The sample and the remaining opium were sealed separately with the seal GS and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exhibit PW1/A. Formal FIR Exhibit PW2/B was registered. Vide reported of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PW, the contents of the sample were opined to be that of opium.

2. The respondent was put to trial under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short to be referred as "the Act"). When examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he claimed that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Act were not complied with, as also the evidence produced by the prosecution was not satisfaction and, therefore, the accused was acquitted. The State has come up in appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.

3. The Investigating Officer did not join any independent witness, whatsoever, in the investigation to prove the recovery of opium. This remains an important fact. In view of the law laid down in Chand Mohd. v. Punjab State, 1996(4) Recent Criminal Cases 163, Jagtar Singh v. Punjab State, 1996(4) Recent Criminal Cases 203, Baba Budh Gir Chela v. Haryana State, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Cases 411 and Gaya Nand v. Haryana State, 1996 Recent Criminal Cases 610, it was imperative in the given circumstances to join and examine an independent witness to vouchsafe the fair investigation.

4. It is true that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are members of the police force. But their statements must be inspiring confidence and convincing. Both the official witnesses i.e. Gurdev Singh SI (PW-1) and Gurmit Singh ASI (PW-2) have not been able to establish the purpose of their presence at the place of alleged capture of the respondent. It was allegedly about 2:30 p.m. when the police party left the police station. The recovery allegedly took place around 5:30 p.m. and it was still day time. The police had ample chance to join the independent witnesses to vouchsafe the fair investigation. In the absence of this, the accused deserved the benefit of doubt.

5. The case property, as claimed by Shri Gurdev Singh ASI (PW-1) was not sealed by the SHO in his presence. He could not satisfactorily explain as to from where the weighing scale was brought and how they had procurred the empty tin from taking the sample. So, the evidence led by the prosecution is absolutely unsatisfactory and not inspiring confidence and thus such an evidence cannot be relied upon to connect the accused with the crime. Such an investigation amounts to an ex parte proceeding against an accused and rather amounts to a camera proceeding and in such circumstances, the Court cannot believe such a testimony, which may lead to miscarriage of justice.

6. As the same time, MHC Des Raj has not been produced, nor his affidavit has been filed to say that the case property remained intact till analysis by the Chemical Examiner. Gian Chand constable, who allegedly handed over the sample to the Chemical Examiner, was not examined and was returned without being examined many a time. Therefore, the important link evidence would be deemed to be missing. The law provides that the Courts must appreciate the evidence that the sample of the contravened (contraband ?) articles remained untempered till its analysis. In Ram Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) Recent Criminal Reports 82 (Punjab and Haryana), the Investigating Officer handed over the case propert