IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.274-SB of 1997 Date of Decision : January 30, 2008 Ram Chander S/o Shivani Shanker, ....Appellant R/o village Garoat, Distt.Malsour, (Madhya Pradesh) Versus The State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. S.S.Rana, 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 10.3.1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Ram Chander, for the offence punishable under Section 18 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 two years. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 7.11.1993, Bikramjit Singh, ASI, alongwith Harsaran Singh, Head Constable, Som Nath, Head Constable, Teja Singh, Constable, Surjit Singh, and other police officials, under the directions of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer, Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana, was present in connection with picketing in Transport Nagar Chowk, G.T.Road, Ludhiana, on the road leading from Samrala Chowk to Sherpur Chowk. A four-wheeler bearing registration No.PUK-3041, came from the side of Sherpur Chowk, and Dalip Kumar, Sub Inspector, gave a signal to the said four-wheeler to stop. Instead of stopping the vehicle, the driver Crl. Appeal No.274-SB of 1997 (2) thereof, became perplexed, and tried to turn back . He was, however, apprehended by Dalip Kumar, Sub Inspector, with the help of his companions. All the persons, who were sitting in the four-wheeler, were asked to get down, with their luggage. Ram Chander accused, was one of them, and he was handed over to Bikramjit Singh, ASI, for taking necessary action. The search of cloth bag, which was being carried by Ram Chander, was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. It was found containing 5 Kgs. Opium. He could not produce any licence or permit, for keeping in possession the said quantity of opium. Two samples of 50 grams each, were taken out, from the same. The same were put into small tin boxes, and sealed. The remaining opium weighing 4 Kgs. and 900 grams, was put into a tin box, and made into parcel. All the three parcels, were sealed, with the seal bearing impression 'BS'. The specimen of the seal was also prepared. All the parcels, were taken into possession, vide a separate memo, which was attested by the witnesses. Ruqa Ex.PC, was sent to the Police Station, through Surjit Singh, Constable, on the basis whereof, the FIR was recorded by Charanjit Singh, ASI. Rough site plan was prepared, with correct margin notes. 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 18 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 Naginder Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-1), Som Nath, ASI (PW-2), Bikramjit Singh, ASI, (PW-3), Gia Singh, Head Constable, (PW-4), Saarbjit Singh, Constable (PW-5), and thereafter, the Addl. PP for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. Crl. Appeal No.274-SB of 1997 (3) 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. It was asserted by him, that he was working at the shop of Sudesh Sethi, Shop No.8, Dholewala Chowk, Ludhiana, and the said shop is near Police Station Division No.6, and the police officials frequently visit that shop. His wages for three months were due from Mr. Sethi, and when he demanded the same, he got him falsely implicated, in the present case. He also examined Sarabjit Singh, Constable (DW-1), in his defence. He also tendered into evidence, copy of the judgment, and thereafter, the accused closed the 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. 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 no independent witness was joined, by the Investigating Officer, at the time of alleged recovery, despite availability. He further contended that non-joinig of an independent witness by the Investigating Officer, despite availability, cast a cloud of doubt on the prosecution story. Bikramjit Singh, ASI, (PW-3), in his statement stated that an effort was made to join a public witness, but none was willing to join the proceedings. On the other hand, Som Nath, ASI, (PW-2), stated that at the time of recovery, no public witness was present. The law does not require that a witness from the public should be joined, at the time of search or seizure. The mere fact that no independent witness was joined, despite Crl. Appeal No.274-SB of 1997 (4) availability, is not sufficient to distrust and disbelieve the evidence of the official witnesses. In the absence of any corroboration, through an independent source, the Court is put on guard to scrutnize the evidence of the official witnesses, carefully and cautiously. After careful and cautious scrutiny, if the Court comes to the conclusion, that the same does not suffer from any serious infirmity, the same can be believed. The evidence of Som Nath, ASI (PW-2), a recovery witness, and Bikramjit Singh, ASI (PW-3), the Investigating Officer, has been carefully perused. They made consistent statements, with regard to the date, time and place of recovery of opium, from the bag, being carried by the accused. They had no ill-will, grudge, or enmity, against the accused, to falsely implicate him, in the instant case. Nothing could be brought out, during the course of their cross-examination, which may go to discredit their evidence. The evidence of both these witnesses, on reappraisal, has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and creditworthy. In this view of the matter, non- joining of an independent person, did not cast any doubt, on the prosecution story. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, is correct. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that since there was a secret information, with Bikramjit Singh, ASI, he was required to reduce the same, into writing, and inform his officer superior, in that regard. He further contended that by not reducing into writing, the secret information, and not informing the Officer superior, Bikramjit Singh, the Investigating Officer, violated the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, is not correct. There is no evidence on record, that there was any secret information, against the accused, that he was coming with opium from a particular side, and could be apprehended, if picket was held. On the other hand, it is evident that the Police party had held a picket, Crl. Appeal No.274-SB of 1997 (5) as per the directions of the D.S.P. Per chance, a four-wheeler, being driven by the accused, in which other persons were sitting, came and the same was stopped. Thereafter, on search of the bag, which was being carried by the accused, 5 Kgs. opium was recovered. Since, there was no secret information, the question of reduction of the same, and informing the Officer superior in regard thereto, did not at all arise. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that Gurcharan Singh, an other accused was also apprehended at about the same time, and recovery of 5 Kgs. Opium was effected from him, by a police party headed by other Police Officials, but he was acquitted by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 7.2.1996, the certified copy whereof, was placed on the record, and as such, the accused was also entitled to acquittal. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It is evident from the copy of judgment dated 7.2.1996, that another party headed by Inder Singh, Sub Inspector, alongwith Balwinder Singh, Head Constable, Gurdev Singh, Constable, Jasbir Singh, PHG, and other police officials, under the directions of D.S.P. and the Station House Officer, Division No.6, Ludhiana, had held a picket, in the Transport Nagar Chowk, G.T.Road, Ludhiana, when Gurcharan Singh, another accused was apprehended, and recovery of 5 Kgs. opium, was effected from him. The evidence against Gurcharan Singh was not of the same set of witnesses. The evidence against Gurcharan Singh, was of another set of witnesses, whereas, the evidence produced by the prosecution, in the present case, was of a different set of witnesses. Had the accused, in the present case, and Gurcharan Singh been apprehended, during the same transaction, and the set of witnesses, in both the cases, been the same, acquittal of one, would have certainly led to the acquittal Crl. Appeal No.274-SB of 1997 (6) of other. The acquittal of Gurcharan Singh, therefore, did not entitle the accused, in the present case, to acquittal. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. No other point, was urged, on the behalf of the appellant. 13. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial 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. 14. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 10.3.1997, are upheld. The accused/appellant is directed to surrender to his bail bonds to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. January 30, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE