Mr. K. C. Puri, J.:- By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2003 titled as Kuldeep versus State of Haryana and Criminal Appeal No.820 of 2003 titled as Mithu versus State of Haryana as both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and incident. For convenience facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No.473 of 2003 titled as Kuldeep versus State of Haryana.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.6.2001 a Police party headed by Ram Singh SI/SHO of Police Station Sadar Dabwali was present at Bus Stand Saktakhera in the early morning when a Maruti Car was spotted coming from the side of Sangaria. The car was got stopped. Accused Kuldeep was on the steering of the car and he was accompanied by co-accused Mithu. Two gunny bags were found lying on the rear seat of the car and on suspecting some contraband in those bags, SHO served the accused with a notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. They, however, reposed faith in the police party. The bags on search were found to contain choora post. Samples were separated and sealed and were taken into possession along with the residue choora post and the car. The accused were arrested and samples were got analyzed from the chemical examiner and these were identified as choora post. After completion of investigation of the case, challan was presented in the Court.

3. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as relied upon by the prosecution. The accused were charge sheeted under Section 15 of the Act. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to substantiate its case prosecution examined Budh Singh (PW- 1), Constable Rajbir Singh (PW-2), HC Ram Kumar (PW-3), SI Ram Singh (PW-4), HC Ram Kumar (PW-5) and closed the prosecution evidence.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. Their version is that they had cultivated the land of Radhey Sham Sarpanch of village Shergarh and there arose a dispute over the share of crop on account of which said Radhey Sham in collusion with the police, got them involved in this case falsely. They did not lead any evidence in defence.

6. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentence the accused as aforesaid.

7. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellants have directed the present appeals.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that as per story of the prosecution, recovery of 70Kgs of poppy straw has been effected from both the appellants on 10.6.2001 in a Maruti Car. There was ample opportunity for the prosecution to join the independent witnesses but no independent witness has been joined. Even no efforts to join the independent witness was made. So, the prosecution story is doubtful.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that according to the prosecution story the intoxicant articles were lying in a Maruti car. The prosecution has neither produced any evidence on the file regarding ownership of the said car nor any such owner has been produced.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that according to the case of the prosecution seal was given to ASI Balwant Singh and therefore, he was a material witness for the prosecution. Said ASI Balwant Singh has not been examined by the prosecution.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that according to the prosecution story sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 11.6.2001 but the same has reached to the said office on 13.6.2001. There was ample opportunity for the prosecution to tamper with the sample during the said period. Rajbir Singh, who is a material w