IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.283 of 2005 Reserved on : May 13, 2008. Decided on : May 22, 2008. Setu Devi …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. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, whereby she 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 one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, may be stated thus. On 18th February, 2004, when PW-8 SI Dhabe Ram of Police Station Aut, accompanied by Constable Chandermani (PW-1) and Constable Ramesh Kumar (PW-2), was present at Shandli Mor, in connection with routine patrolling, appellant Setu Devi was seen coming from Aut side. On seeing the police people, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… she got unnerved and turned back and started moving very fast. That aroused the suspicion of PW-8 SI Dhabe Ram. He commanded her to stop. In the meanwhile, PW-7 Hem Raj also reached there. In the presence of PW-7 Hem Raj and the abovenamed two Constables, PW-8 SI Dhabe Ram searched the bag, which the appellant had concealed under her shawl. It was found to contain Charas, which on weighment was found to be 5 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams were separated. Samples and the bulk Charas were made into three separate parcels. The parcels were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter ‘D’ of English alphabet. NCB form was filled in. All the three parcels alongwith the NCB form and the specimen impressions of the seal, which had been taken on a piece of cloth, were deposited with the Moharrar Head Constable, PW-4 Raj Kumar. One sample parcel alongwith NCB form and the specimen impressions of seal were sent to the Chemical Examiner by PW-4 MHC Raj Kumar, through Constable Chandermani (PW-1). Chemical Examiner reported that the sample contained contents of Charas. 3. Trial Court charged the appellant with the offence of possessing 5 kgs of Charas. She pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PW-8 SI Dhabe Ram, PW-1 Chandermani, PW-2 Ramesh Chand and PW-7 Hem Raj, an independent witness, to prove the charge. PW-7 Hem Raj turned hostile. Other three witnesses, all police officials, supported the prosecution version. No major or worth noticing contradiction or inconsistency appeared in their testimony. …3… 4. Suggestions were thrown to the prosecution witnesses that the appellant deboarded a bus at Aut, which came from Neoli side, and was to board another bus for Shadabai, but the police people recovered an abandoned bag containing Charas from the bus and suspecting the appellant to be the owner of that bag, arrested her and cooked up the story that she had been carrying the same concealed under the shawl worn by her. In her statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied that the bag was recovered from her. She stated that she alighted from a bus at Aut, as she wanted to go to Shadabai to see her sister and, in the meanwhile, police party having a bag with them asked her if the bag belonged to her, which she denied, but the police people took her into custody and planted the Charas on her. She did not state in the statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the bag was found lying abandoned in the bus from which she had alighted, as suggested to the prosecution witnesses. On the contrary, she stated that the police party was having a bag and asked her if it belonged to her and despite her denial arrested her, alleging that the bag belonged to her. 5. We were taken through the entire evidence by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Additional Advocate General. We do not find any contradiction, worth noticing, in the testimony of PW-1 Chandermani, PW-2 Ramesh Kumar and PW-8 SI Dhabe Ram. All of them have stated, in no uncertain terms, that on the relevant date they were present at a place called Shandli Mor, in connection with patrol duty, when around 12 or 12.15 appellant came from Aut side and on seeing the police turned back …4… and started moving at a faster pace, upon which she was asked to stop and on search of her bag 5 kgs Charas was recovered. They stated that two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated and the samples and the bulk Charas were made into three parcels and the parcels were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of English letter ‘D’. PW-8 SI Dhabe Ram testified that he deposited the case property with the Moharrar Head Constable alongwith NCB form and a piece of cloth on which specimen impressions of the seal had been affixed. PW-4 MHC Raj Kumar testified that the case property had been deposited with him at 3 p.m. on 18th February, 2004 and on 19th March, 2004 he sent one sample to CTL Kandaghat, through Constable Chandermani (PW-1). In fact the date of sending the sample is 19th February, 1004, as is clear from RC Ex. PB. Date 19th March, 2004 appearing in his statement seems to be due to typographical mistake. He stated that alongwith the sample he sent NCB form and specimen impressions of the seal. PW-1 Chandermani stated that on 19th April, 2004, PW- 4 MHC Raj Kumar gave him a sample parcel alongwith NCB form and specimen impressions of the seal for being delivered at Chemical Laboratory, Kandaghat, and he delivered the same to the concerned official of the said Laboratory. Date appearing in the testimony of this witness is also incorrect because the date of receipt of sample is mentioned as 19th February, 2004 in the Chemical Examiner’s report Ex. PN. 6. No doubt, PW-7 Hem Raj, the sole independent witness, did not support the prosecution version and stated that the bag was found abandoned by the police in a bus, which came from …5… Sainj, but he was cross-examined with the leave of the Court and he stands contradicted by his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with which he was duly confronted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had not been complied with and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to acquittal. The plea cannot be accepted because the Charas was recovered not from the personal search of the appellant but from the search of the bag, which she was carrying and in this view of the matter we are supported by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, AIR 2005 Supreme Court Weekly 2154. 8. Another submission that was made on behalf of the appellant was that only the official witnesses supported the prosecution version, while the sole independent witness testified on the lines of the defence plea and in view of this peculiar situation the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt. By now, it is well settled that the testimony of official witnesses also carries the same weight as that of independent witnesses and the only precaution which is required to be taken is to thoroughly scrutinize the evidence of police officials, before it is believed. In the present case, it has already been noticed that there is nothing on the record indicating that the official witnesses have lied or they had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Even though, PW-7 Hem Raj, a hostile witness, stated that the Charas was found abandoned in the bus, the appellant herself did not say in her statement, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that Charas was found abandoned …6… in any bus. PW-7 Hem Raj is discredited by his previous statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with which he was duly confronted. 9. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J May 22, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J