Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 24.05.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which accused-appellant Satnam Singh alias Santa has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (here-in-after called the ‘Act’) and the order on quantum of sentence of the even dated, vide which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.40,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 01.05.2003 PW1 Sub Inspector Budh Singh, SHO, Police Station Rori (the Investigating Officer) along with HC Kapoor Singh and other police employees was present at ‘T’ point village Kuranganwali, at Rori - Kalanwali Road in connection with crime checking. In the meantime, one person carrying a plastic bag, was seen coming from the side of village Kuranganwali. On suspicion, he was apprehended. On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Satnam Singh alias Santa son of Dholla Singh, resident of village Sukhchain. The Investigating Officer suspected some narcotic substance in the bag and served a notice under Section 50 of the Act Ex.PA to him. Vide his reply Ex.PA/1, the accused reposed faith in the Investigating Officer for taking the search of the bag. The notice and the reply were signed by the accused and the witnesses. The bag was checked by the Investigating Officer and it was found containing poppy straw. From the recovered poppy straw, two samples of 100 grams each were separated and on weighment, the residue was found to be 19 kilograms and 800 grams. The samples and the residue were converted into separate parcels and were sealed by the Investigating Officer bearing seal impression ‘BS’ and were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo Ex.PB, which was attested by the witnesses. The seal after use was handed over to HC Kapoor Singh. The accused was arrested. Ruqqa Ex.PC was sent to the police station. On the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was registered. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PD. Statements of the witnesses were recorded.

3. On return to the police Station, the case property and sample parcels were deposited in the Police Malkhana. The report under Section 57 of the Act was sent to the DSP, Dabwali. On completion of formalities of the investigation, the report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after called ‘Cr.P.C.’) was presented in the Court.

4. The accused appellant was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act vide order dated 30.05.2003 by the learned trial Court, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses.

6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accusedappellant pleaded innocence and false implication.

7. In the defence evidence, accused examined Darshan Singh as DW1. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed.

8. Appreciating the evidence on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the accused appellant was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and was awarded the sentence as mentioned in the upper part of the judgment.

9. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence the present appeal has been preferred.

10. I have heard Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana and have meticulously examined the record of the case.

11. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that no independent witness has been associated, even though the recovery is alleged to have been effected on a