IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 Date of Decision : January , 2008 1. Sukhdev Singh S/o Dalip Singh ....Appellants R/o Rangana Farm, P.S.Jujiana, District Muzaffar Nagar, (U.P.). 2. Gurmej Singh @ Geja S/o Darshan Singh R/o Village Duberri, P.S. Jujiana, District Muzaffar Nagar. Versus The State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Kulbir Narwal, Advocate for the appellants. 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 7.5.1999, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which it convicted the accused/appellants Sukhdev Singh and Gurmej Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' only) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac each, and in default of payment of the same, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year each. Pal Singh @ Pala, was, however, acquitted by the trial Court. 2. On 7.9.1993, at about 10.30 PM, in the area of village Sangatpura, Paramjit Singh, ASI, Station House Officer, of Police Station Lehra, alongwith Kashmira Singh, ASI, Sukhram Singh, ASI, and other police officials, was present on the bridge of drain failling on the road from Gaga to Sangatpura, in connection with special picket (nakabandi), under the directions of the DSP Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 (2) Sunam. Gurcharan Singh @ Billu, resident of village Daska, a public witness, happened to reach there, and was joined with the police party. At about 8.00 PM, a truck bearing No.UHQ 787 (LP), came from the side of Gaga. A signal with torch light was given to stop, as a result whereof, the said truck stopped. A person jumped from it, and managed to escape in darkness. The truck was driven by Sukhdev Singh accused, resident of Distict Muzaffar Nagar. Gurmej Singh @ Geja accused, was sitting by his side. Both of them were apprehended, and, on enquiry, they disclosed their names aforesaid. On further enquiry by the police, they disclosed the name of the person, who managed to escape as Pal Singh @ Pala, resident of Ibdan Nagar (U.P.). The truck was having a tarpaulin on open body. The police asked Sukhdev Singh and Gurmej Singh, about the contents of the truck. Both of them told the police, that it was containing poppy husk, belonging to three of them jointly. The search of the truck, in accordance with the provisions of the law, was conducted. 55 bags, containing 35 Kgs. poppy husk each, were found in the said truck. From each of the bag two samples were drawn separately. The samples, and the remaining poppy husk, were converted into separate parcels, and duly sealed with the seal bearing impression 'PS'. Specimen impression of the seal used, was prepared separately. Thereafter, the case property, and the samples were taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PB. Ruqa Ex.PC, was sent to Police Station Lehra, through a Constable, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered. The truck, tarpaulin, and the documents of the truck, were also taken into possession, vide Ex.PE. Site plan, of the place of recovery, was prepared. Personal search of Sukhdev Singh and Gurmej Singh, was conducted, as a result whereof, a sum of Rs.120/- and Rs.80/- respectively, were recovered from them. The same were also taken into possession. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 (3) 3. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the them. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 15 of the Act, was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Paramjit Singh, SHO, the Investigating Officer (PW-1), Dinesh Kumar, an official from the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Muzaffar Nagar, (PW-2), Surinder Kumar, Head Constable (PW-3), Surinder Singh, Constable (PW-4), Kashmira Singh, ASI (PW-5), and Darshan Singh, ASI (PW-6). Gurcharan Singh, public witness and Lakhwinder Singh, PW, were given up by the prosecution, as won over by the accused. Report of the Forensic Science Labortary, Ex.PK was tendered into evidence by the Public Prosecutor for the State, and thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence. 5. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Both the accused, in their statements took up the plea, that they were coming to Lehra to see their relation, and while they were in front of the Police Station, the Police stopped them due to the altercation which took place between them, and they were falsely implicated, in the present case. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence. 6. After hearing the Addl. PP 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/appellants. Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 (4) 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 appellants, at the very outset, contended that though Gurcharan 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. 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, was 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 Paramjit Singh, ASI (PW-1), and Kashmir Singh, ASI (PW-5). In these circumstances, non-examination of Gurcharan Singh, public witness, who was given up, as won over, did not in any where 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 quite exposed and vulnerable to human feelings of yielding, browbeating, threats and inducements and giving up of the public witnesses, as won over, is fully justified 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 Gurcharan Singh, public witness as having been won over by the accused. 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 appellants, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 (5) 10. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellants, that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, which are mandatory in nature, were not complied with by the Investigating Agency, and as such, the trial stood vitiated and the accused/appellants are entitled to acquittal. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. There is no evidence on record, that there was any prior information with the Police, to the effect that the accused were bringing a big haul of poppy husk, in a truck, and could be apprehended, if special picket (nakabandi), was held. On the other hand, from the evidence of the witnesses, it was proved that the police party had held a special picket (nakabandi). In this view of the matter, the question of compliance of the provisions of Section 42, did not at all arise. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being incorrect, stands rejected. 11. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the case property, was not connected with the appellants. He further contended that the bags containing poppy husk, when produced in the Court, did not bear the identification tags, and the seals thereon, were torn. He further contended that the case property of some other case, was apparently produced in the Court, with a view to connect the same with the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The gunny bags, containing the poppy husk, recovered in this case, were produced, during the evidence of Paramjit Singh, ASI (PW-1). These were exhibited as Ex.P-2 to P-56. During the course of cross-examination, it was stated by PW-1, that some of the bags and parcels, were torn or otherwise damaged, and a few of the bags weighed less than the stated weight. He further clarified, during the course of cross-examination that the contents of some of the bags could leak out of the same. He further stated that the seals on some of the bags, were either broken, or impressions thereof were not legible. The recovery, in this case, was effected on 7.9.1993, whereas, for the first time, the case property was Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 (6) produced in the Court on 16.1.1997 i.e. after a period of more than 3 years and 4 months. During this period, the case property remained lying in the Malkhana, along with the case property of other cases. On account of shortage of space, in the Malkhana, the case property was bound to undergo the process of decay. The seals thereon, fixed with lac (a resinous substance), could break, while handling or mishandling the same, by irresponsible police officials, and the possibility of tearing of some of the bags by the rats, or other insects, also could not be ruled out. However, this fact alone could not go to prove, that the case property was not connected with the accused. Paramjit Singh, ASI (PW-1), identified the case property, as the one, which was recovered from the accused, on the relevant day. The trial Court was, thus, right in holding that the case property, was connected with the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the case of the prosecution, was based on the evidence of the official witnesses only, and it was not safe to rely upon the same, to hold the accused guilty. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The mere fact that the case of the prosecution was based on the evidence of the official witnesses, did not mean that their evidence, should be disbelieved, and distrusted, merely on account of their official status. The evidence of the official witnesses, is as good, as that of any other independent witness. In the face of the evidence of the official witnesses only, the Court is put on guard to scrutinize the same carefully and cautiously, and after careful scrutiny, if it comes to the conclusion, that the same does not suffer from any serious infirmity, the same can be believed. The evidence of Paramjit Singh, ASI (PW-1), and Kashmir Singh, ASI (PW-5), has been thoroughly reappraised by this Court. Both of them stated that on 7.9.1993, 50 bags, containing 35 Kgs. poppy husk each, were recovered from the truck aforesaid, which was Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 (7) being driven by one of the accused, and the other was sitting by his side. Both the prosecution witnesses, had no ill-will, grudge, and enmity against the accused, to depose falsely. Even, otherwise, it could not be imagined, that such a large quantity of poppy husk, could be planted against the accused, without any rhyme or reason. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is reliable, and inspires confidence, in the mind of the Court. 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 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.” The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, it could be said that the trial Court was right in placing reliance on the cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable evidence of the official witnesses, to hold that the accused were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties. Crl. Appeal No.553-SB of 1999 (8) 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 7.5.1999, are upheld. The accused/appellants are directed to surrender to their bail bonds, to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. January 25, 2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE