IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.435-SB of 1999 Date of Decision : January 23, 2008 Manga Ram S/o Darshan Singh ....Appellant R/o village Khanauri, P.S. Khanauri, Distt. Sangrur Versus The State of Punjab and another ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. D.S.Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. O.P.Dabla, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 27.3.1999, rendered by the Court of Special Judge, Patiala, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Manga Ram, for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and, to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year. 2. On 15.4.1998, William Jeji, Sub Inspector, the Investigating Officer, accompanied by Ashwani Kumar, Head Constable, and other police officials, held a picket (Nakabandi) in the area of village Rasauli. A public witness Attar Singh was also joined. At about 3.30 pm, a blue coloured Maruti Car, bearing registration No.CH-01K-0023, driven by the accused, came from the side of village Chicharwal. The car was stopped, by the Investigating Officer, with the help of his campanions. On opening the rear window, the Investigating Officer found four gunny bags on the rear seat, which had been spread out. The search of the gunny bags was conducted, in accordance with the Crl. Appeal No.435-SB of 1999 (2) provisions of law. Each gunny bag was found containing 35 Kgs. poppy husk. A sample of 250 grams from each of the gunny bags, was taken out. The remaining poppy husk was put into the same gunny bags. The samples and the gunny bags were duly sealed, and taken into possession. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Balbir Singh, Constable (PW-1), a formal witness, Surinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-2), also a formal witness, William Jeji, Sub Inspector (PW-3), the Investigating Officer, who effected the recovery of 4 bags, containing 35 Kgs. Poppy husk each from the car, being driven by the accused, Ashwani Kumar, Head Constable (PW-4), a witness to the recovery, Prem Chand, Clerk in the office of Registering Authority (PW-5), who proved the ownership of the Car, Pritpal Singh Thind, DSP (PW-6), the Gazetted Officer, who came to the spot and in whose presence, the search of the Car was effected. The Addl. PP gave up Attar Singh PW, as won over, by the accused, vide his statement dated 18.3.1999, and thereafter, closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He, however, did not lead any defence evidence. 6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. Crl. Appeal No.435-SB of 1999 (3) 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended that though Attar Singh, an independent witness, was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of the alleged recovery, yet he was not examined, and, as such, the case of the prosecution became doubtful. It is, no doubt, true, that Attar Singh, PW, was joined by the Investigating Officer, at the time of recovery. Since Attar Singh, PW sided with the accused, during the trial of the case, he was given up, as won over by the Addl. PP, for the State, vide his statement dated 18.3.1999. The Public Prosecutor is the master of the case. It was for him to decide, as to how many witnesses, he wanted to examine, to prove his case. If the Public Prosecutor comes to the conclusion, that a particular witness, is not going to support the case of the prosecution, and if examined, would damage its case, then he is at liberty to give him up as won over. The case of the prosecution was duly proved from the evidence of Balbir Singh, Constable (PW-1), Surinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-2), William Jeji, Sub Inspector (PW-3), the Investigating Officer, and Pritpal Singh Thind, DSP (PW-6). In these circumstances, non-examination of Attar Singh, public witness, who was given up, as won over, did not in any way cast doubt, on the prosecution case. In Roop Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) RCR 146, it was held that no adverse inference can be drawn, when the only independent witness was given up by the prosecution, as won over, by the accused. It was further held, in the said authority, that the panch witnesses being human beings are exposed and vulnerable to human feelings of yielding, browbeating, threats and inducements, and giving up of the public witness, as won over is fully justified Crl. Appeal No.435-SB of 1999 (4) in the present day situation prevailing in the society. Keeping in view the ratio of law, laid down, in Roop Singh's case (supra) no adverse inference could be drawn, against the prosecution, on account of giving up of Attar Singh, public witness, as having been won over by the accused. The evidence of William Jeji, Sub Inspector (PW-3), the Investigating Officer, Ashwani Kumar, Head Constable (PW-4), a witness to the recovery, and Pritpal Singh Thind, DSP (PW-6),on reappraisal has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and creditworthy. The trial Court was, thus, right in placing reliance thereon, to hold the accused guilty. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 10. It was next submitted by the counsel for the appellant, that the case property was not produced before a competent Magistrate, and, as such, the possibility of tampering with the same, could not be ruled out. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. William Jeji, Sub Inspector (PW-3), the Investigating Officer, stated that on reaching the Police Station,on the same day, he deposited the case property with Surinder Singh, MHC. It was further stated by him that, on the next day, he took the case property from the MHC and produced the same before the Illaqa Magistrate, vide application Ex.PK, on which he passed order Ex.PK/1. He further stated that on return to the police station, he redeposited the case property with the MHC. There is application Ex.PK, vide which the case property was produced by the Investigating Officer, before the Illaqa Magistrate. The Illaqa Magistrate passed the order dated 16.4.1998, Ex.PK/1, thereon, holding that the case property and the samples were produced before him and the same were duly sealed. Even from Ex.PL, report of the Chemical Examiner, it was proved that the seals on the samples were intact, when the same were received in that office. Under these circumstances, the question of tampering Crl. Appeal No.435-SB of 1999 (5) with the case property did not arise at all. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 11. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the lower Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld. 13. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 27.3.1999, are upheld. The accused/appellant is directed to surrender to his bail bonds to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. January 23, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE