IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.208 of 2005 Reserved on : May 13, 2008. Decided on : May 22, 2008. Ramu …Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge Appellant Ramu has filed the present appeal, under Section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, challenging the judgment dated 25.11.2004 of the trial Court, whereby he has been convicted of an offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a further period of four years. 2. Case of the prosecution, as made out from the evidence on record, is like this. On 21.12.2003, a police party, headed by ASI Ram Saran (PW-2), Incharge Police Post Manikaran, left for Chhoj Kasol and surrounding area for routine patrolling and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… detection of crime. Around 5 p.m. when the police party was present in the Chhoj forest about 1 km away from village Chhoj, appellant was seen coming along a path from Manikaran side. On seeing the police, the appellant got unnerved and stood standstill. That aroused the suspicion of ASI Ram Saran, PW-2. He went to the appellant, asked his name and told him that it was suspected that he was carrying some narcotic drug, like Charas etc., and it was intended to search his person and in case he so desired search of his person could be arranged in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Appellant opted for being searched on the spot. He was carrying rucksack Ex. P-3. On search, it was found to contain a gunny bag Ex. P-4. Inside that gunny bag, there was another green coloured gunny bag Ex. P-5, which contained two polythene packets Ex. P-6 and in those packets there was Charas, which on weighment was found to be 3.150 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated. Samples and the bulk Charas were made into three separate parcels and the parcels were sealed with a seal, which produced the impression of English letter ‘T’. A written report of the matter was prepared and sent to the police Station, through Constable Gurdial Singh (PW-1). Case property was produced to SHO PW-7 Dinesh Kumar, who resealed the same with his own seal, which produced the impression of English letter ‘H’. The said SHO then deposited the case property with PW-5 HC Jia Lal. NCB forms were filled in on the spot by PW-2 ASI Ram Saran. The aforesaid NCB forms were also deposited with MHC Jia Lal (PW-5), alongwith the case property. 3. One of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner by PW-5 HC Jia Lal, through Constable Pratap Singh …3… (PW-6). Chemical Examiner vide report Ex. PA reported that the contents of the sample parcel were of Charas. 4. Trial Court charged the appellant with an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and proceeded to try him, when he pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the end of the trial, the appellant was held guilty and sentenced, as aforesaid. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that no attempt was made to associate any independent witness and that the only evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charge consisted of PW-2 ASI Ram Saran, who headed the police party, and Constable Gurdial Singh (PW-1), who was one of the members of the party headed by PW-2 ASI Ram Saran. He also submitted that there were contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 Gurdial Singh and PW-2 ASI Ram Saran, which suggested that the Charas was recovered from elsewhere and planted upon the appellant. 7. It is true that no independent witness had been associated at the time of the search of the appellant, but it has come in evidence that the appellant was apprehended in a forest 1 km away from habitation and no independent witness was available on the spot, at the time of the search. Also, it is not the requirement of law that if a Police Officer, while patrolling the area falling within his jurisdiction, happens to intercept a person, at a public place, on suspicion that he might be carrying some contraband, he should first …4… call some independent witnesses and then search the baggage or the person of the person so intercepted. 8. It is also well settled by now that police officials are as good witnesses as private persons. The only exception in their case is that their testimony is to be appreciated with extra caution and circumspection, because of their interestedness in the success of the case. 9. In the present case, both PW-2 ASI Ram Saran and PW-1 Constable Gurdial Singh testified that they left Police Post Manikaran around 11.30 for routine patrolling and detection of crime. Their testimony to this effect is corroborated by entry in Rojnamcha copy Ex. PW-2/A, which has been duly proved by PW-3 Sunil Kumar, Moharrar Constable, Police Post Manikaran. The two witnesses further stated that at 5 p.m. when they reached Chhoj forest, appellant was seen coming along a path from Manikaran side and on seeing the police he got perplexed. That aroused their suspicion and that on search of the rucksack, which he was carrying on his back, a gunny bag was recovered, which contained another gunny bag and in the second gunny bag there were two polythene packets containing Charas, which, on weighment, was found to be 3.150 kgs. Both of them have stated that two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated and the two samples and the bulk, together with rucksack and gunny bags, were made into three separate parcels and the parcels were sealed on the spot and search and seizure memo was drawn. 10. Learned counsel representing the appellant could not point out any contradiction or inconsistency, worth noticing, in the testimony of the two witnesses and, therefore, there should be no …5… reason to disbelieve the same. Also, no inherent infirmity is there in the testimony of the two witnesses nor was any pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt of the appellant returned by the trial Court. However, with respect to the sentence part of the judgment, we find that the imprisonment awarded by the trial Court in default of payment of fine is on the higher side and excessive. Trial Court has awarded four years imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. We reduce it to one year. 12. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence part of the judgment, appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J May 22, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J