IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. 125-MA of 2009 Dated of Decision:- March 23, 2009 State of Haryana ....APPELLANT VERSUS Gurvinder and another ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mrs Ritu Punj, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. State has filed an appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 1.12.2008 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he acquitted Gurvinder son of Pritam Singh and Bhola Singh son of Pritam Singh of the charge framed against them. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.7.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. ASI Jagmal Singh along the police party reached Sisaipul Hansi for checking of the vehicles. A car bearing No. UP-07K-2025 make Opel was spotted coming from the opposite side of Char Kutub Gate, Hansi. It was stopped. The driver disclosed his name Gurwinder Singh son of Pritam Singh and the person sitting with him disclosed his name as Bhola Singh son of Pritam Singh. The vehicle was searched and two plastic bags from 2 Criminal Misc.No. 125-MA of 2009 the rear seat and one from dickey were found. Two samples of 100 gram each were taken from each bag and thereafter each bag weighed 31 Kg. 800 gms. FIR was registered. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Suresh Kumar HC PW1, Raghbir Singh retired SI PW2, Jai Bhagwan HC PW3, Inder Singh Inspector PW4, EASI Shish Ram PW5, Constable Virender PW6 and SI Jagmal Singh PW7. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that seven witnesses were produced by the prosecution in the trial Court and the case of the prosecution was proved by these witnesses. 96 Kg of chura post was kept consciously in the possession of the respondents without a permit. These witnesses have corroborated each. An offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is made out against the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and perused the impugned judgment. The place of occurrence was a thorough fare, but no independent witness was joined, nor any explanation coming from the side of the Investigating Officer as to why efforts were not made to join an independent witness. Shish Ram EASI PW5 to whom allegedly the case property was deposited with by the Investigating officer, has stated that the case property was deposited at 5.00/6.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer Jagmal Singh SI PW7 has stated, that the respondents were arrested at 8.30 p.m. on 25.7.2007 and the police came at the police station at 10.00/11.00 p.m. There is contradiction in the timings, when the case property was 3 Criminal Misc.No. 125-MA of 2009 deposited. The link evidence is totally missing and there is ample opportunity of tampering with the case property. Shish Ram PW5 has stated, that the samples were sent back by the Forensic Science Laboratory with an objection that the seals were broken. Seals were again affixed and thereafter samples were sent to the FSL. There is delay of 25 days in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Dismissed. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) March 23, 2009 JUDGE SKArora