Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 1998 Date of Decision : March 25, 2008 Charanjit Singh S/o Harnek Singh, ....Appellant R/o Butala. Versus The State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Bhullar, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.2.1998, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Charanjit Singh, for the offence, punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances 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 six months. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 26.7.1994, Hardev Singh, SI, accompanied by Sarup Singh, ASI, Sukhdev Singh, HC, and other police officials, went to village Chak Sidhwan, and held a picket, near bus stop Chak Sidhwan. At about 9.30 AM, Charanjit Singh, accused, accompanied by a lady came from the side of Darewali. On seeing the police party, they tried to slip away, but both of them were apprehended. Hardev Singh, SI, apprehended the accused. The accused was carrying a bag in his right hand. The search of the bag, being carried by the accused, was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law, which resulted into recovery of 2 Kgs. opium. A sample of 10 grams was separated therefrom. The sample and the remaining opium were Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 1998 2 converted into parcels, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression 'HS', and taken into possession alongwith the sample seal. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, the formal FIR was registered. Rough site plan of the place of recovery, with correct marginal notes, was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 3. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. 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 his case, examined Sarup Singh, ASI (PW-1), a witness to the recovery, Tirath Singh, MHC (PW-2), who deposed with regard to the deposit of the case property, sample parcel, and the sample seal with him, with seals intact, as also the sending of the sample parcel to the office of the Chemical Examiner. Sukhwinder Singh, Constable (PW-3), who was handed over the sample parcel, with seals intact, alongwith the sample seal, for deposit of the same in the office of the Chemical Examiner, and who deposited the same there, and Hardev Singh, SI (PW-4), the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, 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. It was stated by him, that the instant case was planted again him, at the instance of in-laws of Amarjit Singh son of Bawi. The accused examined Sukhdev Singh, HC, as DW-1, in his defence, and thereafter, closed the same. 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 Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 1998 3 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 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, despite availability, was joined by the Investigating Officer, which must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. Sarup Singh, ASI (PW-1), a recovery witness, during the course of his cross-examination stated that farmers were planting paddy plants, near the place of recovery. He further stated that they tried to associate them, but they did not agree to join the investigation. No question was, however, put to Hardev Singh, SI, during the course of his cross-examination, as to whether, he made an effort to join an independent witness, at the time of effecting the alleged recovery or not. In these circumstances, the evidence of Sarup Singh, ASI, (PW-1), that an effort was made to join an independent witness, but none was ready to join, can be said to be correct. The mere fact that no independent witness was ready to join, despite efforts, having been made by the police party, does not mean that the cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy evidence of the official witnesses, should be distrusted and disbelieved. The evidence of the official witnesses, cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, for want of corroboration, through an independent source. In the face of the evidence of the official witnesses only, the Court is put, on guard, to scrutinize the same 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. In the instant case, the evidence produced by the prosecution, has been scrutinized and no serious infirmity has been found therein. There is, therefore, no Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 1998 4 formidable reason not to rely upon the same. In Akmal Ahmed Vs. State of Delhi, 1999(2) RCC 297 (S.C.), it was held that, it is now well-settled that the evidence of search or seizure, made by the police, will not become vitiated, solely for the reason that the same was not supported by an independent witness. In State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil (2000)I S.C.C. 748, it was held as under:- “It is an archaic notion that actions of the Police officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the Police. At any rate, the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature.” 9-A. In Appa Bai and another Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 S.C. 696, it was held that the prosecution story cannot be thrown out, on the ground, that an independent witness had not been examined, by the prosecution. It was further held, in the said authority, that the civilized people, are generally insensitive, when a crime is committed, even in their presence, and they withdraw from the victims side, and from the side of the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the Courts, unless it is inevitable. Moreover, they think the crime like a civil dispute, between two individuals, and do not involve themselves in it. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, mere non-joining of an independent witness, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has been held to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy, and reliable, and there was no reason, on their part, to falsely implicate, the accused, no Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 1998 5 doubt is cast on the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, stands rejected. 10. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the case property, in the instant case, was not produced before the SHO of the Police Station, as a result whereof, there was violation of the relevant provisions of the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. Hardev Singh, SI (PW-4), the Investigating Officer, deposed that Dilawar Singh, DSP, was present in the Police Station, when he came back, before whom the case property alongwith the accused was produced. The said DSP then verified the investigation and put his seal, on the case property as also interrogated the accused. The DSP, being an officer superior to the SHO of the Police Station, since the case property including the sample was produced before him, in my opinion, there was complete compliance with the relevant provisions of law. 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 contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that only one sample of 10 grams, was taken, from the substance, allegedly recovered, from the accused, and, thus, there was failure to comply with the relevant provisions of law. It may be stated here, that the sample is drawn from the substance, recovered from the accused, with a view to send the same to the office of the Chemical Examiner, so as to ascertain, as to whether, the same was actually contraband or not. A sample of 10 grams, drawn from the substance recovered from the accused, in my opinion, was sufficient to enable the Chemical Examiner, to analyse the same. The Chemical Examiner analysed the same, and came to the conclusion, that the same was of opium. In this view of the matter, no prejudice, whatsoever, was caused to the accused, on account of non-drawing of two samples. If, there was some procedural irregularity, that Crl. Appeal No.99-SB of 1998 6 did not affect the merits of the case. 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. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the seal after use was handed over to Sarup Singh, ASI (PW-1), and there was every possibility of tampering with the case property and the sample, till the same (sample) was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner. This argument of the Counsel for the appellant, appears to be based on conjectures and surmises. It was not necessary by the SI, even to hand over the seal to the ASI. The overall consideration of the cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, produced by the prosecution, clearly goes to reveal, that the link evidence, in this case, was complete. In these circumstances, the mere fact that the seal was handed over to Sarup Singh, ASI, did not at all affect the merits of the case. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 14. 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. 15. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 03.2.1998, are upheld. If the accused/appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude. March 25, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE