S.S. SODHI, J.

(1.) The challenge in appeal here is to the conviction of the appellant Jang Singh, for an offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein-after referred to-as the) and the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lakh imposed in respect thereof.

(2.) According to the prosecution Assistant Sub-Inspector Om Prakash was out on patrol on November 24, 1985, along with Constables Ram Avtar, Surat Singh and Azad Singh, when on reaching near the bus stop Jakhal, at about 1.00 P.M., the appellant Jang Singh was spotted coming from the side of the Mandir. On seeing the police party Jang Singh tried to turn back and slip away. This aroused the suspicion of Assistant Sub-Inspector Om Prakash and his party as a consequence of which Jang Singh was apprehended and on search, he was found to be carrying 6 kilograms of poppy husk in a bag. It is in respect of this matter that he has been sent up for trial and convicted and sentenced in the manner as mentioned earlier.

(3.) To establish their case against the appellant, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Head Constable Surat Singh and P.W. 2 Assistant Sub-Inspector Om Prakash. No independent witness was associated either at the time of the search and recovery or at any time even during the completion of the formalities of the investigation in this case. Counsel for the appellant at the very outset, attacked the prosecution case on this account. In dealing with the point urged, it must be observed that it is no doubt well settled that the testimony of a witness is not to be doubted or discarded merely on the ground that he happens to be an official, but it is an equally well- recognized rule of caution that courts should look for independent corroboration to the testimony of official witnesses in such cases. Relevant of course, in this context, are the time and opportunity available to the police party to associate with such independent witnesses.

(4.) It was sought to be contended on behalf of the prosecution that considering the fact that it was a chance encounter of the appellant Jang Singh with the police party that led to his search and the consequent recovery of the poppy husk non-association of any independent witness should not be looked upon as an infirmity in the prosecution case.

(5.) The contention raised, though attractive on the face of it, cannot stand scrutiny In as much as the completion of the formalities of the investigation of this case took a couple of hours and that too, at a place where many members of the public must undoubtedly have come and passed by. If the police party was so minded, there was ample opportunity available for joining some members of the public, at any rate, to witness some of the formalities of the investigation of this case. Had this been done, it would indeed have lent further assurance to the prosecution case.

(6.) Keeping in view the stringent punishment prescribed under the, interests of Justice do indeed render it incumbent upon the Court to ensure that before a conviction is recorded, no element of doubt creeps in. Corroboration of the search of and recovery from an accused person by some independent respectable person would go a long way in dispelling such doubts.

(7.) Reference here must also be made to the safeguards provided by Section 50 of the Act, for an accused person to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. In the context in which this right has been conferred, it must be taken as an imperative requirement on the part of the Officer intending the search, to inform the person to be searched of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Failure to do so can be construed as prejudice to the accused, which may, in certain circumstances, warrant his acquittal in respect of the offence charged merely on this ground particularly where the quantity of the article recovered is small or of a monetary value of little; consequence. There is no suggestion that (the appellant here was apprised of any such right before any search.

(8.) Considered thus in their totality the circumstances clearly render the conviction of the appellant unsustainable. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are accordingly hereby set aside and this appeal is thus accepted. The ball bonds of the appellant, who is on bail, shall stand discharged. Appeal accepted.